Full text of "Review on Dr. Hunter's Indian Musalmans; are they bound in conscience to rebel against the Queen?"

See other formats

3 =

:00

"CD

=LO
iCD

REVIEW

HUNTER'S INDIAN MISAIM ANS

ARE TKi:. BOUND IN CONSCIENCE TO REBEL
AGAINST THE QUEEN ?

SVED AHMAD KHAN BAHADUR C S. 1.

A7S

Rs 3-00

Premier Book House

Anarkali LAHORE (W. faL)

PURCHASED FOR THE

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

FROM THE

CANADA COUNCIL SPECIAL GRANT

FOR

^STUHLES

Published by Sb, Muhammad Khalil at The Unit Printing Press,

Katchery Road, Lahore and Published by him from The

Premier Book Jlouse, 4/3 Katchery Road, Lahore.

FEB 21968

REVIEW
m Dr. HUNTER'S INDIAN MISAIMANS

ARE THEY BOUND IN CONSCIENCE TO REBEL
AGAINST THE QUEEN ?

The attention of the public has been lately, turned to the state
of Mahomedan feeling in India, owing to three causes, viz, the
Wahabi trials. Dr. Hunter's book on the "Indian Musalmans,"
and the murder of the late lamented Chief Justice Norman. Dr.
Hunter's work has made a great sensation in India, and has been
read with avidity by all classes of the community. I commenced its
perusal hoping that a light would be shed upon what, to the gene-
ral public, has been hitherto an obscure subject ; and as I had
heard that the author was a warm friend of Mahomedans, my in-
terest in the work was great. No man, and especially no Maho-
medan, can have perused this, the accomplished author's last cele-
brated work, without being impressed with his extreme literary
skill, his Macaulay-like talent of vivifying everything that his pen
treats of. Literary skill is not, however, everything, and an author
writing for the India as well as for the English public should be
careful not to so color the subject, which he treats of, as to make it
mischievous and of small value as an historical work. I am aware
that many of the ruling race in India are under the impression
that English literature, both books and newspapers, seldom, if ever,
permeates the strata of native society. As regards general literature,
this impression is correct as far as the millions are concerned ;
but on particular subjects, such as the state of feeling of the Eng-
lish to the natives, religious questions, or matters affe cting taxa-
tion, it is a mistaken one.

Natives anxiously con all articles bearing upon the feelings
with which their rulers regard them. Articles sneering at them or

misrepresenting their thoughts and feelings, sink deep into their
soul, and work much harm. Although all cannot read, they man-
age to hear the contents of this and that article or work from those
who can, and the subject usually receives a good deal of embellish-
ment as it is passed from one to the other. Articles or books on
religious and fiscal questions are also eagerly commented on by a
large proportion of the population.

What books and newspapers enunciate is, by the general na-
tive public, believed to be the opinion of the whole English commu-
niity — official or non-official— from the veriest clerk to the Governor-
Oeneral in Council — aye, even to the Queen herself ! Such being
the case, writers should be careful to their facts with treating of
any important subject, and having got their facts, ought to avoid
all exaggeration or misrepresentation. Now when we find an offi-
cial, high in office and in favor with Government, giving utterance
to assertions and assumptions such as those contained in Dr. Hun-
ter's work, it is but natural that we Mahomedans should come to
the conclusion that the author's opinions are shared in more or less
by the whole English community. I have before mentioned that I
had expected great things from Dr. Hunter's book. Alas ! that I
should add one more to the long list of disappointed men. Friend
to the Mahomedans, as Dr. Hunter no doubt is, his friendship as
respresented by this his last work, has worked us great harm.
"God save me from my friends!" was the exclamation which rose
to my lips as I perused the author's pages. I perfectly admit the
kindlyfeeling towards Mahomedans which pervades the whole book,
and for this I heartily thank the talented author. At the same
time, I regret deeply that his good intentions should have been so
grievously frustrated by the manner in which he has v^ritten, and
that he has used his "power of the pen" in a way calculated still
more to embitter the minds of Englishmen against the already
.little loved Moslems.

Dr. Hunter expressly states that it is only the Bengal Maho-
medans to whom he applies the subject-matter of the book, and
that it is only them whom he knows intimately. The book, how-
ever, abounds in passages which lead the reader to believe that it
is not merely the Bengal Mahomedans that the author treats

of, but the Mahomedans throughout India. The title of the work
itself proves this. "Our Indian Musalmans. Are they bound in
conscience to rebel against the Queen ?" Again at page 2, there oc-
curs the following passage:— "Discussions which disclose the Ma-
homedans masses eagerly drinking in the poisoned teachings of
the Apostles of Insurrection, and a small minority anxiously seek-
ing to get rid of the duty to rebel by ingenious interpretations of
their sacred Law." Again on the same page — "The Musalmans
of India are, and have been for many years, a source of chronic
danger to the British power in India." With a knowledge, there-
fore, only of Bengal Mahomedans, the author gives us the
general feeling of Mahomedans throughout India. As a cosmo-
politan Mahomedan of India, I must raise my voice in opposition
to Dr. Hunter in defence of my fellow-countrymen. I know
full well the arduousness of the task which I have undertaken —
the difficulty which encompasses every advocate of a cause which
has been pre and misjudged by men of a different race. I only
ask for an impartial hearing in the words of the Bishop of
Manchester, spoken at Nottingham last month :— " All things
are possible to him that believeth, and where there is true faith
there is certain to be no obliquity of conduct." Being firm in
my belief in what I am about to write, I hope that it may be
possible for me to convince the public that all is not gold that
glirters, and that all is not exactly as Dr. Hunter would have it
believed.

As Dr. Hunter's work represents Wahabi-ism and rebellion
against the British Government as synonymous, I will first pro-
ceed to review the light in which the former is presented to the
Indian public by the learned doctor, and I will then pass to the
consideration of the latter question. Wahabi-ism has withal
been little understood by the world at large, and it is rather
difficult to put it in a comprehensive light before the public.
In my opinion, what the Protestant is to Roman Catholic, so is
the Wahabi to the other Mahomedan creeds. A work on
Wahabi-ism was translated into English, and published in the
13th Volume of the Royal Asiatic Journal in 1852. In it the
doctrines of the faith are pretty accurately defined, and Dr.
Hunter has reduced them to the following seven doctrines : —

V iA' 8

V " First, absolute reliance upon one God ; second, absolute re-
nunciation of any mediatory agent between man and his Maker,
including the rejection of the prayers of the saints, and even of
the semi-divine mediation of Mahomed himself ; third, the right
of private interpretation of the Mahomedan Scriptures, and the
rejection of all priestly glosses of the Holy Writ ; fourth,
absolute rejection of all the forms, ceremonies, and out-
ward observances with which the mediaeval and modern
Mahomedans have overlaid the pure faith ; fifth, constant look-
ing for the Prophet (Imam), who will lead the true Believers to
victory over the Infidels, sixth, constant recognition, both in
theory and practice, of the obligation to wage war upon all
Infidels ; seventh, implicit obedience to the spiritual guide." ?

Now, there are several errors here. The latter part of the
second doctrine is so ambiguously worded that the meaning does
not stand out very clear : it ought to stand thus — ''And to recognize
Mahomed as nothing more than an inspired man, and to disbe-
lievein any power of mediation by saints or prophets including
Mahomed himself, before the Holy Tribunal." The third doctrine
is also ambiguous, and I would amend it thus—" Right of every
individual to interpret the Koran according to his lights, and not
to be bound to follow implicitly the interpretation put upon the
same by any former priest." The fifth doctrine is quite obscure,
and its true meaning is much altered. It bears a great affinity
to the belief of the Jews and Christians— in the advent of the
Messiah of the former and of the second coming of Christ of the
latter. Mahomedans believe that before the end of the world, and
before the second advent of Christ, an Imam will descend on the
earth to lead true Believers to victory over the Infidels. Many
Mahomedans disbelieve in this, and regard it as a story invented
by the Jews, and which has crept into their religion. However
this may be, it will be observed that Dr. Hunter has perverted its
I meaning, and has represented the present generation of Wahabis
|as expecting the Imam to lead them to victory against the English.
\Thc sixth doctrine has also suffered at the author's hands. Had
he added the words — "provided that the Musalmans leading the

jihad be not the subjects of those Infidels, living under
them in peace, and without any oppression being exercised towards
them — provided that they have not left their property and families
under the protection of such Infidels — provided that their exists
no treaty between them and the Infidels — and provided that the
Musalmans be powerful enough to be certain of success" — had, I
say, all these provisions been added by our author, his rendering
of this doctrine would have been correct. His object, however,
being to present the Wahabi doctrines in their most terrifying
form, he wisely omitted all these provisions. I do not understand
what the author means by the words "spiritual guide" in the
seventh doctrine. If, by it, he implies a guide of faith, he is in
error, as, by the third doctrine, Wahabis are not bound to follow

any priest blindly. If, however, he means a Mahomedan ruler, he is
right. One thing, however, he has omitted to tell us, v/z., that
Mahomedans are bound to obey an Infidel ruler as long as he
does not interfere with their religion. I would particularly urge on
my readers to bear these doctrines in mind as now interpreted by
me; Dr. Hunter's rendering of them being ambiguous and
calculated to mislead. I shall now proceed to show the origin of
Wahabi-ism — what it was formerly called, when the present name
was given it, and why.

Dr. Hunter writes (page 38):— "It (Wahabi-ism) is a system^
which reduces the religion of Mahomed to pure Theism." This
is quite true; I would merely remark, however, that this is exact-
ly what Mahomedanism was in the days of Mahomed, before it was
encrusted with its present forms and ceremonies by mediaeval and
modern Mahomedans. Mahomedanism was at first for many long
years a pure and simple Theism; but in the second century of the
Higra, when the ideas of the learned men as to its principles were
reduced to writing, it was divided into the four churches — Hanafi,
Shafai, Malki and Humbali. For some time it remained optional
for Mahomedans to choose and follow any doctrine of any of these
four churches. When, however, Bani Umaiya and Bani Abbas
became kings, an edict was issued directing all Mahomedans to
embrace the whole doctrines of any one church of the above four.
Those who disobeyed this edict were punished. By this unjust

order, free opinion was summarily suppressed, and religious
intolerance gained supremacy. There were still, however, many
^ who clung to the true faith in its primitive simplicity, but who
{,V dared not breathe their opinions except to a trusted few. Their
■-•■'^ name was then Ahal-i-Hadis, /. e., believers in the sayings of the
(i Prophet, who were not bound down by the doctrines of the four
\ churches. As time went on, the order first alluded to was more
and more strictly enforced until, with the majority of Mahome-
dans it became the principal article of faith. The Ahal-i-Hadis
gradually became hated by the masses, and in Mahomedan law-
books they were held up to the execration of the Faithful. This
state of affairs prevailed throughout the whole Mahomedan world
until the beginning of the seventeenth century A. D. A civil war
breaking out just then in Arabia, Abdul Wahab, son of the chief
of Nejd, defeated his opponents and ascended a throne of his own
making. His faith was that of the Ahal-i-Hadis, and as he was
supreme in his own country, he openly preached and spread the
doctrines of the original creed. He died and was succeeded by a
ruler of the same faith, who soon after his accession prepared for
a pilgrimage to Mecca. On asking, however, the Sharif of Mecca
for leave to perform the pilgrimage according to the precepts of
his faith, his request was refused.

The applicant denied the right of any one to refuse him entry
and marched on and conquered both Mecca and Medina. He then
proceeded to abolish all theformsandceremonies with which pure
Mahomedanism had become encumbered — demolished the four
Towers built within the Holy Temple for the worshippers of the
four churches, and destroyed the tombs of saints which were
worshipped as idols. He was, however, soon after defeated by
Muhammad Ali, Pasha of Egypt, and compelled to evacuate both
Mecca and Medina. The Mahomedan world was plunged into grief
at the— in their opinion— sacrileges perpetrated by the Ahal-i-
Hadis, and a bitter enmity sprung up between the Turks and the
followers of Abdul Wahab. The latter were henceforth styled
Wahabis, instead of the former name, Ahal-i-Hadis.

This was exactly what the Jews did to the followers of Christ
when they called them Nazarenes. In India, during the Mahome-
dan rule, the Turk and Pathan kings, who were of theHanafi sect
were strictly averse to religious toleration, and the same state of
affairs prevailed during the sovereignty of the Mogul Emperors,
except during the latter part of the reign of Akbar.

The followers of Ahal-i-Hadis, /. e., the Wahabis, could not,
therefore, then preach their faith without great danger. On the
establishment of British rule, however, owing to the English
principle of strict religious toleration, the followers of Ahal-i-Hadis
again came to the front and preached openly and fearlessly. The
Indian Mahomedans, however, hated them as cordially as the
Arabian Ahal-i-Hadis were hated by the Turks, and they also call-
ed them Wahabis. Such is the history of Wahabi-ism, the bug-
bear of Dr. Hunter.

In a foot-note, page 11, Dr. Hunter says that the word
*'Wahabi" belongs to a later period, and that this sect was first
styled "Ghazis" or '•Jihadis." This is quite a mistake on his part;
Ghazis or Jihadis are men who join in areligious war without any
distinction of sect. There have been, and there still are, Jihadis
of all sects, but to call the Wahabis, as a whole, Jihadis, is utterly
wrong. There were Jihadis amongst the Christians in the days of
the Crusades.

I shall now endeavour to explain the faith and persuasion of
the frontier tribes amongst whom Dr. Hunter establishes the
Rebel Camp.

The mountain tribes on our North- West Frontier are Sunis.
They belong to the Hanafi sect, and are stricter in the observance
of their religion than their co-religionists of the plains. The latter
bear no enmity towards the other three Mahomedan sects; whilst
the hostility of the mountain tribes to all other sects is bitter in
the extreme. An outsider has no security for his life or property
whilst in their country, unless he change his tenets, and adapt them
to those of the Hanafis amongst whom his lot is cast. A friend of

mine, the late Haji Syed Mahammad, one of the Shafai sect, and
an inhabitant of Georgia, some years ago, travelled amongst these
frontier tribes. He related to me the many hardships and severi-
ties to which he was subjected on account of his faith, and said
that he never felt himself secure in any town, village, or even
mosque. These wild denizens of the hills generally take, as their
text-books, commentaries on the Hanafi Church, of which Dur-i-
Mukhtar is one. This was written in the year 1071 Hijra, or A.D.
1660, and is the religious work most venerated by them. It con-
tains some Arabic verses upholding the Hanafi doctrines in prefer-
ence to all others. A translation ofoneofthese, showing the hatred
borne by the Hanafis to the followers of the other churches, is as
\ follows: — "May the curses ofour God, innumerable as the sands of
the sea, fall upon him who followeth not the doctrines of Abu-
Hanifa." These hill tribes lay great stress upon the worship of
tombs of saints and monasteries, especially those of PeerBaba in
Bonair and Kaka Sahib in Kotah. I have never yet met any
Pathan of any other faith than the Hanafi, or any inclined to
Wahabi-ism. In the Hayat Afgani, however, an Urdu history
published at Lahore in 1867, and written by a loyal Mahomedan in
the service of Government, I find the following passage: — "But of
late the followers of Mulla Syed Meer of Kotah are looked upon
as Wahabis, and are held in contempt by the people of Swat, sub-
jects of the Akhoond of Swat and staunch Hanafis. Most of the
Atmanzais and the descendants of Nasir-ul-lah of Garhi Ismail
are the pai tizans of Mulla Syed Meer, whilst all the other moun-
tain tribes follow the Akhoond of Swat," From the foregoing, it
is evident how utterly antagonistic Wahabi-ism is to the faith of
the frontier tribes; and, as far as religion is concerned, how
impracticable it is to form a coalition between the Pathans and the
Wahabis. The latter, who in 1824 settled themselves in the hills,
determined to wage war to the death against the hated Sikhs,
could never persuade the hill tribes to look with favor on their
religious tenets. Hating each other as they did, however, they
smarting under the oppressions and severities of the Sikhs, made
common cause against them. It was these very Pathans, however,
who betrayed the Wahabis to the Sikhs, and it was owing to them

that Syed Ahmed and Moulavi Ismail Saheb were afterwards
slain. These facts must be borne in mind, as they are absolutely
necessary to a proper understanding of the Wahabi history,
represented by Dr. Hunter as a great coalition of the mountain
tribes.

In the first chapter of his work, Dr. Hunter has given us an
account of the establishment of the Wahabi rebel camp. I demur,
however, to many of his statements, and will now proceed to give
a^'short account of the Indian Wahabis, without which it is im-
po^ble to show in what points our author has been misled, and
how greatly he has exaggerated the facts of the case.

The history of the Indian Wahabis is divided into five periods.
0The first extends from 1823 to 1830, /. e., from the year Syed
Ahmed and Moulavi Ismail preached and inaugurated the holy war
against the Sikhs, the oppressors of their Mahomedan subjects, to
the time when Peshawar was re-captured from the hands of their
followersk5 The second extends from 1830 to 1831, i. e., from the
re-conquest of Peshawur to the death of Syed Ahmed and Moulavi
Ismail.^'The third embraces the period from the death of these
leaders to the time when, after the annexation of the Punjab by
the British, the Wahabis, and amongst them Inayat AliandWila-
yat Ali, were sent from the frontier to their homes in Hindustan,
v/z., from 1831 to 1847.? The fourth extends from 1847 to the
second expedition of Inayat Ali and Wilayat Ali to the frontier
and to their death. The fifth is the present period which Dr. Hunter
erroneously calls the period of Wahabi insurrection. The first
period of the Wahabi history was its golden age. Everything
that the Wahabis of that age did was known to Government, and
they were not, at that time, in any way suspected of disloyalty to
the British. Mahomedans at that time openly preached a holy
war against the Sikhs, in order to relieve their fellow-countrymen
from the tyranny of that race. The leader of the Jihadis was
Syed Ahmed, but he was no preacher. Moulavi Ismail was the
man whose preaching worked marvels on the feelings of Mahome-
dans. Throughout the whole of his career, not a word was uttered

'>.

by this preacher calculated to incite the feelings of his co-
religionists against the English. Once at Calcutta, whilst
y^ preaching the j/Aat/ against the Sikhs, he was interrogated as to
9- his reasons for not proclaiming a religious war against the
f-. ^ British, who were also infidels. In reply he said that, under the
^^ ^English rule, Mahomedans were not persecuted, and as they were
\ ^^♦''' the subjects of that Government, they were bound by their
religion not to join in a yV/ta^ against it. At this time thousands
of armed men and large stores of munitions of war were collect-
ed in India for the yV/za^/ against the Sikhs. Commissioners and
Magistrates were aware of this and they reported the facts to
Government. They were directed not to interfere, as the
Government was of opinion that their object was not inimical
to the British. In 1824, these Jihadis against the Sikhs reached
the frontier, and they were afterwards continually strengthened
by recruits and money from India. This was well-known to
Government, and in proof of this, I will cite the following
case: — A Hindu banker of Delhi, entrused with money for the
Wahabi cause on the frontier, embezzled the same, and a suit
was brought against him before Mr. William f raser, late Com-
missioner of Delhi. The suit was decided in favor of the
plaintiff, Moulavi Ishak, and the money paid in by the defendant
was forwarded to the frontier by other means. The case was
afterwards appealed to the Sudder Court at Allahabad, but the
decision of the Lower Court was upheld. At this time, the
Wahabi cause prospered. With the aid of the frontier tribes,
Peshawur was conquered, and was made over to Sultan
Mahammad Khan, brother of the late Dost Mohammad Khan
of Cabul. It was, however, soon after treacherously sold by

him to Ranjeet Sinha. :^-tv i'!^

During the second period the Wahabi cause waned. When
Peshawur again fell into the hands of the Sikhs, numbers of
the learned men amongst the followers of Syed Ahmed and
Moulavi Ismail lost heart completely. They saw that the Pathan
tribes on the frontier hated them on account of their faith, that
no help was therefore to be expected from them, and they saw

that their own number was too small to cope successfully with the
Sikhs. They therefore declared that they were no longer bound
by their religion to continue the contest. A difference of opinion
had also arisen amongst them as to the fitness of Syed Ahmed to
be their leader — most of them declaring that he was unfit, whilst
others maintained the contrary. Moulavi Ismail exerted himself
to the utmost to allay these dissensions. He v/rote a work,
entitled Mansab-I-imamaty which was published in Calcutta in the
year 1265 Hijra (A. D. 1849). All his efforts were, however,
unavailing, and the band was broken up. Thousands returned
to their homes in India, of whom the most noted were Moulavi
Mahbub Ali, who died in 1864, and Moulavi Haji Mahomed.
The latter was a resident of Lower Bengal, but he married at
Delhi, and resided there for many years. He died at Alwar in
1870. It may interest my readers to learn that the above-named
Mahbub Ali was the same man who in 1857, was summoned by
the rebel leader, Bukht Khan and requested by him to sign the
proclamation for a religious war against the English. He refused,
and told Bukht Khan that the Mahomedan subjects of the British
Government could not, according to the precepts of their religion,
rise up in arms against their rulers. He moreover reproached
him and his followers for the inhuman cruelties perpetrated by i
them towards the European ladies and children.

After this secession, Syed Ahmed's following was much reduced;
and in 1831, he, with most of his adherents, was, through the
treachery of Khadi Khan, slain in action against Shere Sinha.
On their leader's death, the desertions from the cause were nu-
merous. In order to prevent these, it was falsely given out that
Syed Ahmed was alive, and had miraculously disappeared and
hidden himself in a cave. This deception was, however, soon ex-
posed, and the followers of Syed Ahmed returned to their homes.
After this period, the supplies of men and money, &c, in aid of the
jihad ceased entirely from the N. W. Provinces. What occurred ^
during the third period is not very interesting. I would here men-
tion that Syed Ahmed, after the re-capture of Peshawur by the
Sikhs, asked those of his followers, who were resolved to die with

him for the cause, to make a solemn promise {hayat-fil jihad) to
this effect. Several hundreds complied, and it is almost certain
that only the few of those who survived the battle fought against
Shere Sinha remained in the hills after the fall of their leader,
Syed Ahmed. The majority of them were from Patna and other
parts of Bengal. Moulavis Inayat aH and Wilayat Ali of Patna
now became their leaders, but did nothing toward:- furtherance
of jihad. On the annexation of the Punjab by the British, they
and most of their followers were despatched to theirhomesin 1847.
Now, we have seen how recruits and money were forwarded from
Patna and other parts of Bengal, and India generally, during the
three first periods of frontier Wahabi history ; but I think it is
very evident that not a man of those was intended or used for an
attack on British India, nor was there the slightest grounds for sup-
posing during those three periods, that there was a rebellious spirit
growing up amongst the general Mahomedan public in India. And
yet Dr. Hunter maintains (page 55) that "about thirty years ago
one of the Caliphs came on a missionary tour to Bengal, settled
there, became trusted by all the neighbouring landed proprietors
and preached rebellion with great force and unction," He also,
says our author, "forwarded yearly supplies of men and money
to the Propaganda at Patna for transmission to the frontier
camp." Now this brings us back to the year 1841 or so, when
several years had still to elapse before the Punjab was annexed
by the British. Does Dr. Hunter really believe that men and
money were forwarded at that time to enable the frontier people
to attack the English ? I think he will admit that a holy war
against the Sikhs had been going on for many years before the
year 1841 ; and that it is but probable that the "men and money
supplies" were intended for the defeat of the subjects of the
Punjab rulers. I will now proceed to show that in the fourth
period also there is no foundation for any suspicion whatever
against my co-religionists in India. The English, who are
unacquainted with the general run of Mahomedan opinion, will
probably deem me an interested partizan, and will pay small
attention to, or place little reliance upon, what I think and write.

This, however, must not deter me from speaking what I know
to be the truth, After the return to India of Moulavis Inayat
Ali and Wilayat Ali in 1847, there still remained a small rem-
nant of Syed Ahmed's followers on the frontier It is true that
these two never slackened their efforts to induce men of Pama
and the vicinity to join the yz/za^ and to collect money for the
purpose. They were indefatigable, and in 1851, they showed what
was still their leading idea by again leaving India for the frontier.
Now Dr. Hunter has made out that it was with the intention of
waging war with the British that they again resorted to the frontier,
and that they thus transferred the jihad from the Sikhs to the
British, Was this likely when they had no cause of complaint
against the latter ? We have already seen in the oppression on
Mahomedans by the Sikhs, what reason the former had for
attacking the latter ; but no reason has yet been shewn, either
by Dr. Hunter or by any one else, for this sudden hatred to
the British. No ; it was against the Sikhs in Jammoo that their
arms were directed. I have this from one who met these two
Moulavis on their way to the frontier ; and I have no doubt
of its truth. It must be borne in mind how very strict in
their religion these Wahabis are. Stern fanatics, they never
swerve aside from the principles of that faith. Now, those
of whom I am writing had left their families and property in
the care of the British Government, and their faith expressly
forbids them taking up arms against the protectors of their
families. Had they fought and died in battle against the English,
they would have been deprived of the joys of paradise and
martyrdom, and would have been deemed sinners against their
own religion. We have seen how small were the remnants of
the Wahabi band on the frontier, and it has been shewn how
hated they were by the hill tribes on account of their religious
tenets. One feels inclined to smile when we read sentences
like this in Dr. Hunter's book: — "The second minute of Lord Dal-
housie had to deal with a proposition for a frontier war against
the border tribes whose superstitious hatred to the Hindustani
fanatics had again fanned to a red heat" (Page 12). Our author

forgets the very important fact that these mountain tribes
have been turbulent from time immemorial ; that they have
never allowed any peace to any nation living on their frontiers,
whether so-called infidels or Musalmans ; that they fought
indiscriminately with the Mahomedan Emperors of Delhi, and
with the Sikhs in the Punjab. Like the Irishman at a fair, it
mattered little to them who it was as long as it was some one
to fight with. Even the great tyrant. Nadir Shah, whose name
was feared throughout India, was never able to keep them in
subjection. With regard to Wilayat Ali and Inayat Ali and
their small following, nothing has ever transpired to shew that
they ever conspired against the British power in India. On
their death, which happened a few years after 1851, their follow-
ers all dispersed.

It is quite true that men and money were transmitted during
the stay of these Mouiavis on the frontier from Patna and other
parts of Bengal ; but no one believed that they were to be used
against the British. It is not likely that a force so feeble could
aspire to overturn the strong British Empire.

The fifth period of India Wahabi-ism has also, in my hum-
ble opinion, no connection whatever with jihad. I cannot
believe that after the death of Wilayat Ali and Inayat Ali, men
or money were forwarded to the frontier from Bengal in fur-
therance of a religious war. Since 1857, however, a band of
desperate men, composed of mutineers and others — who, through
the severe punishments meted out during the Mutiny, fled for
their lives to those remote tracts— have taken up their abode
at Mulka, Sittana, in the Nepal Terai, and in the deserts of
Bikaneer and Rajputana. These who fled to the N. W. Frontier
lyere Hindus of all castes, as well as Mahomedans of different
denominations ; and they instinctively collected together,
fleeing, as they were, from a common danger. It was they,
as mentioned above, who occupied Mulka and other places ;
and to assert, as Dr, Hunter does, that they were there for
the purpose of making a religious war against Government —
composed, as their band was, of Hindus and Musalmans of all

castes and denominations — is too absurd for belief. It is not
unlikely, however, that many of these refugees were in communi-
cation with their homes in different parts of India, and it is
very probable that they were assisted with sums of money by
their relatives. A man, because he becomes an outlaw, does not
necessarily forfeit the love of his relatives, nor do they feel it the
less incumbent upon them to assist him by any means in their
power. This has probably formed one of the bases upon which
Dr. Hunter has constructed his edifice of a "regularly organized!
system of contributions of men and money in aid of a religious!
war against Government." Another was probably the fact of moneyj
having found its way from India to the Akhoond of Swat. Now,
my readers are probably all aware that every Mohamedan is
bound, according to the precepts of his faith, to set apart at the
endof each year, for the purpose of charity, one-fortieth part of
his capital. This is termed zakat. Many, of course, do not
act up to their religion, and decline to put their hands into
their pockets to benefit others; but all good Wahabis, and
also all Mahomedans who haveWahabi proclivities, discharge
this duty faithfully. The money thus set apart is paid by them
to the poor of the neighbourhood, to travellers passing thorough
their towns and vilages, and to Moulvis famed for their learn-
ing, to convents where pious men live in retirement, and to pu-
pils residing in mosques, for their education. In distributing
these alms, they can scarcely be required to find out all the
recipient's antecedents; and so frightened have Mahomedans
now become of being accused of aiding and abetting sedition,
that in many cases men have abstained altogether from assisting
travellers or any one else. Apparently, no Mahomedan can now
dispense his "zakat" without laying himself open to the charge
of aiding a yi/ta(a^ against the English. As regards the Akhoond
of Swat, I have no doubt that he may have received portions of
"zakaf from wealthy Mahomedans. He is, however, no
Wahabi, and I can confidently assert that any sums which he
may have received had no connection whatever with a jihad
against the Indian Government. The school kept by Shah

Abdul Azeez and the convent of Gulam Ali at Delhi received
pecuniary aid from all parts of the world besides India, and one
might just as well assert that they were aided for the purpose of
waging jihad, as maintain that the Akhoond of Swat was subsidiz-
ed for this purpose from India. Having thus given a resume of
the history of Indian Wahabi-ism, I would request my readers to
bear the same In mind whilst accompanying me through the
pages of Dr. Hunter's work. I think I have proved that the Indian
Wahabi jihad — represented by our author to have been one
against the British — was intended solely for the conquest of the
Sikhs, and that, even although the band of mutineers at Mulka
and Sittana may have given trouble to Government after 1857,
the frontier colony composed, as it was, of Hindus as well as
Mahomedans, was scarcely one which could be designated as a
jihadi community. On opening Dr. Hunter's book, in the very
first page occurs the following sentence: — "For years a rebel
colony has threatened our frontier, from time to time sending forth
fanatic swarms, who have attacked our camps, burned our
villages, murdered our subjects, and involved our troops in three
costly wars." This is very pretty writing, enriched, as the
sentence is, by the phrases "rebel colony" and "fanatic
swarms;" but the unprejudiced reader will at once ask "to
whom does the author refer ?" If he refers to the Wahabis who
settled there to wage y7/?a^ against the Sikhs, I have shewn how
unfounded such an assertion would be ; and if he means the band
of mutineers — Hindus and Mahomedans — who fled from Hindus-
tan during the Mutiny, what earthly, connection have theire
raids with Dr. Hunter's question, " Our Indian Musalmans. —
Are they bound in Conscience to Rebel against the Queen ?"

Our author states (pagel ) :— "Successive State trials prove
that a net-work of conspiracy has spread itself over our pro-
vinces, and that the bleak mountains which rise beyond the
Punjab are united by an unbroken chain of treason-depots with
the tropical swamps through which the Ganges merges into the
sea. They disclose an organization which systematically levies
money and men in the Delta, and forwards them by regular

stages along our high roads to the rebel camp two thousand
miles off. Men of keen intelligence and ample fortune have
embarked in the plot, and a skilful system of remittances has
reduced one of the most perilous enterprizes of treason to a safe
operation of banking." This, taken in conjunction with his
opening sentence, leads the reader to believe that this conspiracy
was hatched by the Bengal Mahomedans with the more or less
open concurrence of the whole Mahomedan community, with the
object of subverting the English rule in India. Now, 1 think
Dr, Hunter will allow that an organization can exist for other
purposes than that of rebellion ; and I think both Dr. Hunter
and myself have shewn that an organization existed in India for
the purpose of attacking the Sikhs. It is most unfair of him to
insinuate that the organization in question was one inimical to
our Indian Government, and thus to prejudice the minds of his
readers against the whole of the Indian Musalmans. Again, at
page 1, he writes : — " While the more fanatical of the Musal-
mans have thus engaged in overt sedition, the whole Mahomedan
community has been openly deliberating on their obligation to
rebel... For some months the Anglo-Indian press was inclined to
smile at the pains which the more loyal sort of the Musalmans
were taking to ascertain whether they could abstain from
rebellion without perdition to their souls." Now, I have no
hesitation in saying that this is one of the most unjust, illiberal
and insulting sentences ever penned against my co-religionists.
It is very evident that Dr. Hunter could have had but a most
superficial knowledge of the state of Mahomedan feeling, and it
shews how weak was the foundation upon which he built his
so-called facts.

The causes which led to the Mahomedan deliberation and
discussion were not those which Dr. Hunter asserts them to
have been. The followers of Islam in India required on fresh
teaching of the doctrines and obligations enjoined tTo ihem by
their religion. They were well aware of them ; but the statements
of ignorant men, and the injury which the propagation of such
statements wrought on the prospects of the Indian Musalmans

by biassing the minds of the English public against them, conv
pelled them to come forward publicly to rectify their mistakes.
At first, they were rather amused at the interpretations put upon
their faith by some newspaper editors ; but when they found
that matters were taking a serious turn, that their tenets were
being perverted, and that accusations of disloyalty, and state-
m.entsofthe obligation of Mahomedans to be disloyal, were
becoming more and more frequent, they deemed it necessary to
issue the fiitwas alluded to. These are of no modern date.
They have been in existence for hundreds of years, and have
always been relied upon by Musalmans. At page 3, our author
commences an account of the rebel camp on the frontier, and
also gives an account of Syed Ahmed's career. Like those
opposed to Wahabi-isra who jocularly called Syed Ahmed "the
prophet," and said that he appointed four spiritual vice-regents
[(caliphs), Dr. Hunter also styles him by this name, and states
i that he appointed four caliphs (page 4). He also states, but
Ihas no authority for the statement, that "he appointed regular
fagents to go forth and collect a tax from the profits of trade
iin all the large towns which had lain on his route." At page 5
we find him writing the following sentence: — "Their avarice
was enlisted by splendid promises of plunder; their religion,
by the assurance that he was divinely commissioned to extirpate
the whole Infidel world, from the Sikhs even unto the Chinese.'"
Comparing this, however, with the Syed's exhortation to all
Musalmans to join in a Holy War against the Sikhs, we find
no m.ention made of the Chinese. Perhaps Dr. Hunter will
favor us with his authority for this assertion about the Chinese.
At page 7, our author writes that " troops from every dis-
contented prince of northern India flocked to his camp." It
would have been better had Dr. Hunter been a little more
explicit in his meaning, as, from the foregoing, no one can tell
who the princes were, nor why and with whom they were
discontented. Having drawn on liis imagination largely in his
description of what took place in the Himalayas, our author
treats us to a stil! greater flight of fancy in the following;

sentence:— •* Two of the caliphs or vice-regents whom he
appointed at Patna in 1821 made a pilgrimage to the frontier,
and ascertained that their leader's disappearance was a miracle;
but that he was still alive, and would manifest himself in due
time, at the head of a Holy Army, with which he would expel
the English Infidels from India." This assertion is utterly
wrong, and Dr. Hunter probably only thought it necessary to
insert it as corroborative of his interpretation of the seventh
doctrine of the Wahabi faith. He must have heard it from
some one inimical to, and only too ready to bring a false charge
against Wahabi-ism. It is unfortunate for Dr. Hunter that hs-
lias, throughout his work, relied upon very v/eak authorities
when treating of Mahomedan creeds. The learned doctor has!
shewn little discretion in not sifting more carefully; the chaff!
from the wheat. We come now to a sentence which no English-
man, desirous of bridging over the gulf which separates our ''
rulers from us, ought ever to have penned. He says: — " Every
Mahoi^edan.^relig^ionjst too ._ze.alous to live quietly under ji
Christian Government girded up his loins and made for the
SittanaCam.p." What an aspersion is this upon the whole
Mahomedan community which remained quietly in India ! He
does not seem to know what the Mahomedan, and still more
the Wahabi, precepts enjoin on this subject; or, knowing the
same, he wilfully perverts their meaning. Wahabis act strictly
up to the commands of the Prophet, and it is a well known fact
that, during the Mahomedan persecution at Mecca, Mahomed
himself ordered his staunchest followers to take refuge in the
Christian kingdom of Abyssinia. To say, therefore, that
zealous Mahomedans could not remain quietly in British
territory, and that they felt themselves bound to repair to the
frontier, is as untrue as it is uncalled for. Does Dr. Hunter
mean to maintain that none of us Mahomedans who remained
in India are good and zealous Musalmans?

At page 12 Dr. Hunter corroborates ray assertion that,
the arms of the frontier Jihadis Vr'ere not directed against
the British. He say r.— "In the same year (1852) they at-

tacked our ally, the chief of the Amb state, and necessitated
the despatch of a British force." He then goes on to say :—
"I do not propose to trace in detail the insults, inroads, and
murders which led to the frontier war of 1858. During the whole
period the fanatics kept the border tribes in a state of chronic
hostility to the British power." I should like to know what
authority Dr. Hunter has for maintaining that the " chronic
hostility "' to the British was the work of " the fanatics."
Strange that he should saddle this on them, considering that for
centuries the border tribes had been fighting with the dwellers in
the adjacent plains. I should say that they had quite sufficient
inherent fighting proclivities to render any such instigation
^unneceessary. Our author then states :—" During this time
(1852-1857) the Sittana Colony, although stirring up a perpetual
spirit of fanaticism along the frontier, had wisely avoided direct
collision with our troops." This carries out my assertion that
the holy war against the Sikhs was not transferred to the British.
Had it been so, I think my readers will allow that ten years
would not have elapsed without a blow being struck against the
British by the earnest men who, inflamed with holy zeal, so
often fought hand to hand with the Sikhs. Dr. Hunter, how-
ever, quietly ignores this patent fact in order to make his tale
sensational — to lend might to his title — "Our Indian Musalmaiis :
Are they bound in conscience to rebel against the Queen?" We
,now come to the years 1857-58, 1861, and 1863. In 1857, Dr.
Hunter states, the "Sittana Colony" tried to form a general
coalition against us, and had the audacity to insist upon the
British authorities aiding them in collecting their blackmail."
In a footnote he particularly notices the Yusafzai and Panjtar
tribes as having been included in this coalition. I have no
doubt but that the latter two tribes may. in 1857, have been very
strongly tempted to attack British India, inasmuch as the
Mutiny was going on, and the opportunity for a profitable raid
was very tempting. Doubtless, many other tribes had also a
hankering after the fleshpots of British India, and required no
prompting from the "Sittana Colony." It strikes one as rattier

strange that in 1858, only one year afterwards, the "Sittan^
Colony" should be on such bad terms with the whole of th>
frontier tribes as to be attacked by them, and to have their
"fanatic leader" (Syed Umar Shah, vide foonote, page 13) slain.
This shows, I think, that their influence amongst the mountain
tribes could scarcely have been very great. As regards Dr.
Hunter's statement, that they were in the habit of levying tithes
from the adjoining highland class (page 12), my opinion is that,
after the death of Inayat AH and Wilayat Ali, the few that
remained of the old band were far too weak and divided amongst
themselves to attempt anything of the kind. During and after
1857, as has already been shewn, the Sittana Colony became the
rendezvous of the sepoys and others, Hindus and Mahomedans
v/ho were expelled from India during the Mutiny. Now we have
seen, according to our author himself (page 12), that from 1850
to 1857 not a single collision occurred between Dr. Hunter's
"fanatics" and the British troops.

After 1857, however, the collisions are frequent. What is
the inference to be drawn from this ? I think there can be but
one, viz., that it was the Company's mutinous sepoys who were
the instigators and actors in much that has occurred since that
year. The Wahabis — /. e. the remnants of Syed Ahmed's band —
had no hand in the raids nor is there the slightest foundation
for Dr. Hunter's sweeping assertion, that the flames then kindled
were nursed by the Mahomedan community in India. The
border tribes had also a great deal to do with the many raids
and cases of kidnapping, burning and plundering of British
villages; but to lay all these atrocities at the door of Syed
Ahmed's followers, and through them to implicate the whole
of the Indian Musalmans, is monstrous in the extreme.

The remainder of Dr. Hunter's first chapter describes at
length the Ambeyla campaign and the raid of 1868. As regards
the opposition made by the hill clans in the former, I have
only to remark — and this is borne out by British officers

themselves on the spot— that they were not influenced by any
love for the Mulka-host, but were justly incensed at the invasion
of their territories without their permission. Had they had
notice of our intention of advancing by the Ambeyla Pass,
they would almost all have been on the side of the British.
No intimation, however, of cur plans was given them, and
the suspicion engendered in their minds by such conduct made
them range themselves on the side of the Sittana colonists. Had
the British been in the place of the border tribes, would they
not have done likewise ?

^t page 24, Dr. Hunter mentions three chiefs — Mohamm.ad
Izak, Mohammad Yakub, and Moulvi Abdulla ; but he does
not mention whence they came — from Patna, Lower Bengal,
Northern India, or from any other part of the world. One
would like to know whence these fire-brands emanated. I am
unacquainted with their names, and, notwithstanding every
effort, have hitherto failed in tracing them. Our author, whilst
expressing the regret of the Punjab Government at its inability
to drive out the Hindustani fanatics, or induce them to
surrender and to return to their homes in Hindustan
has very discreetly refrained from telling us whether this
alluded to the mutineers of 1857 or to the remnants of Syed
Ahmed's band. He would have finished the chapter with
more eclat had he condescended to do this.

At page 28 of Dr. Hunter's work, we find a graphic account
of a "professional wrestler and bully by name Titu Miyan,'
whose agrarian outrages, in which the cows of Hindus are
slaughtered (and in one instance the daughter of "a wealthy
and obdurate Musalman forcibly married to the head of the
band") are mentioned by Dr. Hunter as the results of a Wahabi
conspiracy to overturn the British rule. It is needless to
attempt to refute so puerile an accusation. Outrages
such as these have been only too common throughout Indian
History, and can scarcely be looked upon as a jiliad against
the English.

The account of the mysterious disappearance of the
" Prophet " (Syed Ahmed) has been slightly exaggerated by the
learn^ed Doctor. The general Mahomedan public were not so
crecfuFous as TTe would have us believe. I would, however,
specially direct the reader's attention to the letter from " one
oTTlie'mosFdevoted Bengal missionaries," in which the writer
describes his discovery of the imposition, and commands his
followers to return to their homes. A very important
inference to be drawn from this command is that this "fanatic
missionary," as Br. Hunter would style him, scorned an
imposition as a means of fanning the religious zeal of his
followers, and also that he had no intention of creating a
disturbance in British territory. Dr. Hunter gives in extenso
the history of Syed Ahmed and Abdool Wahab, and at page 41,
says: — "Whatever was dreamy in his nature now gave place to
a fiery ecstacy, in which he beheld himself planting the Crescent
throughout every district of India, and the Cross buried beneath
the carcases of the English Infidels." Syed Ahmed, or properly
speaking Monlavi Ismail, ceitainly devoted all his energies to
the reform of his faith in India — encrusted, as it had become,
with formulas foreign to the original true faith. In this sense,
therefore. Dr. Hunter is correct in his assertion as to his desire
to have the Crescent planted in every district throughout India.
The latter part of the sentence, however, is given by Dr. Hunter
without quoting his authority, and is more than I can believe
to be true. The summons, issued by Syed Ahmed to the
Mahomedans in favor of ayV/ja^ against the Sikhs, completely
refutes it. No Wahabi could have enunciated any such
opinion, contrary, as it would have been, to the tenets of their
faith ; and I cannot but believe that here again has Dr. Hunter
been misled by some person or persons inimical to Wahabi-ism,

In treating of the Wahabi literature. Dr. Hunter states that
^'throughout the whole literature of the sect this obligation
ijlhad) shines forth as the first duty of regenerate man." x^nd

again in page 46:— "But any attempt at even the briefest
epitome of the Wahabi treatises in prose and verse on the duty
to wage war against the English would fill a volume." He also
gives the prophecies on the downfall of the British Banner,
with a list of fourteen books, and quotes several passages from
the same. These shall be referred to presently, and Dr.
Hunter's glaring blunders exposed. The question of religious
war, and the conditions under which it becomes lawful or not,
are treated of in all the books of the Mahomedan faith including
the Holy Koran, the Hadis (sayings of the Prophet Mahomed),
and Fikah (works on Mahomedan law). Dr. Hunter might,
therefore, have informed the public that the obligation to
jihad is prominently noticed in the whole Mahomedan literature,
and not only in that of the Wahabis. When he maintains that
y/7?aJ is the first duty of a Wahabi, he ought not in justice to
have omitted to inform us under what condition it can be
waged. Dr. Hunter further asserts that this sect has developed
a copious literature relating to jihad. This is quite incorrect,
and will be found to be so when we examine the books
mentioned by our author. The first work named by him is
(S) Sirat-ul-Mustakim,yNx\iXQ\\'m 1223, Hijra or 1818 A. D., by
Moulavi Mohammad Ismail of Delhi. In this the question of
religious war is only treated of once, and this has been given —
full of faults, however, in the rendering — by Dr. Hunter at
page 44. The proper rendering is as follows :—" Holy war is
a work of great profit; just as rain does good to mankind,
beasts, and plants, so all persons partake of the advantages of
jihad in several ways. The advantages of this great work are
two-fold : general, of which spiritual beings—all men, even
idolators and infields, animals and vegetables— partake; special,
of which some partake in one way and some in another. In
connection with general advantages, it may be said that
accurate experience has established that justness of rulers,
conscientiousness of suitors, liberality of the rich, and the
honesty of flf// wf« m ^-ewem/, are the causes of the blessings of
Heaven, viz., copious showers at seasonable times, abundant

supplies of vegetable produce, profit in the trade or business
carried on by men, absence of danger and calamity, increase
in the wealth of the people, and increase in the number of men
of art and learning. All these advantages, increased a hundred-
fold, are conferred upon men when the dignity of the true faith
is upheld, when the rank or position of the kings of the true
faith is exalted, when their rule prevails in many countries,
when the army of a king of the true faith is powerful, and
when the laws of the true faith (Shara) are enforced and
promulgated in these countries. But look at this country-
India, as compared with Turkey and Tartary, as far as the
blessings of Heaven are concerned. Nay, compare the present
state of Hindustan in this year 1233 Hijra (A, D. 1818), when
the greater portion of it has become Dar-ul-Harb, with the
state of India some two or three centuries back, and contrast
the blessings of Heaven now vouchsafed and the number of
learned and pious men vjith those of that period." In addition
to having translated this passage badly. Dr. Hunter has omitted
altogether the phrase "accurate experience" — the very gist of
the whole extract. Now Moulavi Ismail, while writing the
foregoing, was treating generally of the subject of jihad, which
is binding on all Mahomedans when the conditions under
which it is to be waged exist. He alluded to no nation in
particular — Sikh, Hindu, or English ; and to extract a portion
of the work, which, like all Mahomedan religious treatises,
contains a chapter on y//;G</, and thereby to lead his readers to
conclude that the extract in question was specially issued
against the English, was most unfair of Dr. Hunter. In
treating of the justness of rulers, conscientiousness of suitors,
and liberality of the rich, Moulavi Ismail did not only imply
the justness, &c., of Mahomedan rulers. He said that these
qualities would be the source of Heaven's blessings to all those
who possessed them— of whatever faith they might be. Dr.
Hunter seizes on the comparison by Moulavi Ismail of the state
of India in the nineteenth and seventeenth centuries as shewing
an animus against the British Government. He has overlooked

the fact that up to the middle of the eighteenth century, India
was under a Mahomedan Government, which the Moulavi
therefore condemns equally with that of 1818 ! Had the Moulavi
lived in the middle of last century, I scarcely think that he
would have preached a jihad against his own Government.
( Dr. Hunter has also apparently overlooked the word Dar-ul-

f^ar^ (wrongly translated by him as "country of the enemy,"
which, according to his own showing, would prevent all good
' Musalmans from rebelling !

The following are extracts from the learned Doctor's own
article in the Englishman of the 16th May 1871 :—

"We have shown that according to the authoriative
Mahomedan texts, India has ceased to be a country of Islam,
and become a country of the enemy {Dar-ul-Harb)."

"It is a matter of no small importance, therefore, both to
the more zealous of our Musalman subjects and to ourselves,
that India is no longer de jure a country of Islam, and that the
Mahomedans are therefore under no obligation to rise against
us and make it a country of Islam de facto also."

/ "But we have abundantly proven, in our former articles,

that India has ceased to be a country of Islam, and lapsed into
a country of the enemy. The present generation of Musalmans
are bound, according to their own texts, to accept the status quo.
They are not responsible for it, and they are not bound, in the
face of God's providence and the immense perils in which a
revolt would involve the True Faith, to have recourse to arms."

Having thus shown that Sirat-ul-Mustakim, the first of the
14 works with regard to which Dr. Hunter says (page 46) — "The
mere titles of its (the Wahabi sect's) favorite works suffice to
shew their almost uniformly treasonable character" — has no
connection whatever with a jihad against Government, I will
now say a few words as to the prophetic song given at page 45
and 46, and to shew that Dr. Hunter is also in error as to its
purport. This stanza, as also the poem by Moulavi Karam Ali
of Cawnpur, was composed and circulated some time between

1824 and 1830, /. e., when Syed Ahmed was waging y7Aa<i against
the Sikhs. It, as well as the other works which Dr. Hunter
has introduced, certainly serves to embellish his book; but it
fails to maintain or strengthen his arguments as to the
obligation of the Mahomedans to rebel against the Queen, there
being no single word in the translation of the verses to show
that they were intended to excite the followers of Islam against
Government. My readers have only to remember the time of
its promulgation to see to whom its exhortations refer ; and I
therefore leave it to their sense of fairness to judge whether the
following sentence of Dr. Hunter's, which immediately succeeds
this poem (page 46), is true or not : — " But any attempt at even
the briefest epitome of the Wahabi treatises in prose and
verse on the duty to wage war against the English would fill a
volume."

The third work named by our author is Shir-i-fVikaya.5
An Arabic work of this name, written some hundreds of years
ago, and containing doctrines of the Hanafi church, is known
to me as well as to the rest of the Mahomedan world. It may
be a favorite work of the Wahabis, but it was in existence long
before the development of that sect in India ; and it inculcates,
as the Doctor himself admits, (foot note 3, page 46), holy war
only when the Infidel oppresses the true Believers.

The fourth work, viz.. Prophetic Poem, foretelling the down-
fall of the British power, and a few more prophecies at page 43,
were first published by Saint Vali Nyamut Ullah, a dervish of
Cashmere, who died in 1028 Hijra, or 1618 A.D. In his descrip-
tion of the principal tenets of the Wahabi faith, our author
states that they do not recognize saints as possessing any super-
natural powers. Strange, therefore, that he should maintain
that they place any reliance in the poem alluded to. Even
Mahomedans, who worship saint's graves, regard their sayings
as unreliable. Such verses are generally written by astrologers
and by men pretending to a knov/Iedge of Ramal and Jatar.
We find at the same lime good men also enunciating such pro-
phecies with, however, no evil intentions. Christian clergymen.

as my readers will allow, sometimes determine the end of the
world, the downfall of France, Turkey, &c. — basing their pro-
phecies on the revelation of St. John. I think, however, that
men possessing even a small modicum of common sense will
smile at such prophecies, and will scarcely put much faith in
them. Wahabis believe in no prophecy. Their faith teaches
\ them that no man, not even Muhammad himself, had any know-
ledge of futurity— v/We the following verse, 188, 7th Chapter of
the Holy Koran :— " Say (ye Mahomet) I am able neither to
procure advantage unto myself, nor to avert mischief from me
but as God pleaseth. If I knew the secrets of God, I should
surely enjoy abundance of good, neither should evil befall me.
Verily I am no other than a denouncer of threats, and a messen-
ger of good tidings unto people who believe."

The fifth work, Tawarikh-i-Kaiser-i-Rum, has also no con-
nection whatever with Wahabi literature. It is an historical
work written in Arabic by Ibrahim Effendi, in the service of the
Turkish Government. An abstract of the above work was pub-
lished in Persian at Cawnpore in 1821 Hijra (1864 A.D.), and
contains, amongst other matters, an account of the battles
fought between the Wahabis and the Turks in the reign of sultan
Mahmood I.

With reference to the sixth work, Asar-i-Mah^har, written
by Moulavi Muhammad Ali, our author says :— " It fortells a
war in the Khyber Hills on the Punjab frontier, where the English
will first vanquish the Faithful, whereupon the Mahomedans
will make search for their true Imam. Then there will be a
battle lasting four days, ending in the complete overthrow of the
English, • even the very smell of Government being driven out
of their heads and brains.' Thereafter the Imam Mahdi will
lappear, and the Mahomedans, being now the rulers of India,
\vill flock to meet him at Mecca. These events will be heralded
in by an eclipse both of the sun and moon in the month of
Ramzan." Now, I frankly confess that I am at a loss what to
think of Dr. Hunter. I can scarcely believe that he intended to
deceive or mislead his readers ;' but at the same time, I can
hardly credit him with such gross ignorance as is here evinced.

Either one or the other sunposition is the correct one, so that
Dr. Hunter stands convicted either of intentionally misleading
the public or of "ignorance profound." I will now give a
summary of the work, merely begging my readers to bear in
mind the fact that the " Khyber Hills on our Punjab frontier"
of Dr. Hunter are hills of the same name situated near Medina !
The following is my summary which may be relied upon as
correct : —

" About the end of the world, there will be a war between
the Sultan of Turkey and a Christian King. Two Christian
Kings will assist the Sultan (just as the late Sultan was helped
in the Crimean campaign). After a war of varying success in
the plains of Syria, the Sultan will, at last, aided by his Chris-
tian allies, come off victorious. After this, a dispute will arise
between the troops of the Sultan and those of his Christian
allies for the glory of the triumph ; the latter will claim it as the
victory of the Cross, while the former will claim it as the
triumph of Islam. The dispute will at length end in the fall of
the Sultan, and in the alliance of the three Christian chiefs, viz,
the two allies and the opponent of the Sultan. Th333 three
allies will occupy the whole of the Turkish Empire, and will then
extend their dominion as far as the Khyber Hills near Medina,
When events have arrived at this point, Mahomedans, supposing
that the time for the fulfilment of the prophecy regarding the
advent of Imam Mahdi is nigh, will search for him. He will be
at Medina at the time, but will soon after go to Mecca where
they will all flock to him. Shortly after, a chief of Khorasan*
will also march out of his country to visit him in that Holy
City. The Imam will then collect a force with which he will
defeat the Christians, and will establish the faith and kingdom
Islam throughout the greater portion of the world. After this,
Anti-Christ is to appear, and to try to vanquish the Imam ; but
in the meantime Christ will descend from heaven in the mosque

* Vide page 42, and compare this fact with Dr. Hunter's fourth line in
page 42 : — " Had not Mohamud himself said, 'When you see the black flags
coming from Khorasan, go forth, for with them ie a Caliph, the Envoy of
God"

of Damascus, and lending his assistance to Imam Mahdi, they
wi!l both subvert Anti-Christ's power. Several other events of
minor importance are afterwards to take place, and at last the
world v/ill come to an end." So much for Dr. Hunter's
"Khyber Hills." In concluding my remarks on this work, I
would remark that its contents are regarded by Musalmans in
general as mere traditions. Learned Mahomedan divines have
no faith in them, and I deem them as true as any modern
sensational novel.

M -^

The seventh work mentioned by Dr. Hunter is Takniat-ul-
''^ Iman. An English translation of this work was pubhshed in

^ the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, \o\, 13 of 1852. Every
Englishman can read this work for himself ; a perusal of a few
pages will show how little connection it has withWahabi-ism and
jihad. The eighth work is Tazkirat-ul-Akhawi. I am unacquaint-
ed with this work, nor did I ever hear that Moulavi Ismail of
Delhi wrote such a work. From its title, it appears to be a book
containing useful and instructive matter. The ninth work,

Ci Nasihat-ul-Musalmin, consists of five chapters. The first chapter
describes Paganism; the second, the impudence and foolishness of
Pagans; the third shows that, to worship any created things as god
is Paganism ; the fourth describes the customs of Mahomedan
Pagans; and the fifth, the punishment ordained by God to Pagans.
Throughout the work, I, however, find no passage which could be
regarded as likely to instigate even to wage holy war against

/r Government. The tenth work is Hidayat-ul- Muminin. I know
only one book of this name, and it treats of Tuziadari. The
eleventh on the list is an Arabic work, Tanwir-ul-Ainain, which
was printed in Calcutta with an Urdu translation. It says not
a single word regarding holy war, and merely contains
discussions as to whether both hands should be lifted up on
a certain occasion during prayer, or not. The full title of the
work is Tanwir-ul-Ainain fi-isbat-i-rafi-il Yadain, which signifies
*• light of the eyes to show or prove that both hands should
be raised during prayer." Why Dr. Hunter should associate
this work with jihad is more than I can comprehend. The

twelfth, Akdul Jid, is a work written long before the existence
of Syed Ahmad and Moulavi Ismail, by Moulavi Shah Wali-
ullah, grandfather of Moulavi Ismail, who died in 1174 Hijra,
or 1760 A. D. It also treats nowhere of jihad, and simply
discusses the doctrine whether man should follow the dictates
of his own reason and undirstanding in matters of religion, or
should follow implicitly the learned men who have lived before
him. The full name of this work is Akdul-Jid fi AhkamU ]
Ijtehad-i-mt-taklid. It appears, the learned Doctor has |
mistaken the word Ijt&had, which means " to use one's own
reason and understanding," for jihad, and consequently falls
into the error of supposing that it relates to entering on religious
war ! The thirteenth, is Tambihul-Ghaflin, in Urdu. It is a )
small treatise written by Syed Ahmed for his followers and
other Mahomedans. In the introductory part of the book, he
speaks of the transitoriness of this world, and exhorts men to
avoid its temptations to the utmost of their ability. In the
body of the book, he interdicts his followers from worshipping
any created as they would worship the Almighty God. Not
a single word regarding jihad will be found in it. With regard
to the fourteenth work, Arbain or Chihil Hadis, I have only to ' ^
remark that, we find many such selections of forty verses from
the sayings of Prophet Mahomet, not recently compiled and
published ; but I have never hitherto met with any that was ever
compiled by a Wahabi or that contained instigations to jihad.

I now come to the so-called Wahabi Sermon for Hijrat as
given by Dr. Hunter at page 49 of his work. The first portion
of the Sermon is taken from the Calcutta Review, Chapter
11, page 393, and the second, from Jama-i-Tafaser. An English
translation of the latter is, however, given at page 391 of the
abovementioned number of the Calcutta Review. As regards
the fis;t para, of the Sermon, the writer of the Calcutta Review
article cites no authority for his quotation. The second para,
taken from the Jama-i-Tafaser, has suffered at the hands of the
translator, as will b3 seen in the sequel. Th^ author of the
■Jama-i-Tafaser, in the passage above referred to, comments the

lOth verse, chapter 39, of the Holy Koran, v\hich runs thus : —
"Say O my servants who believe, fear your Lord. They who
are good in this world shall obtain good in the next ; and
God's earth is spacious : verily those who persevere with
patience shall receive their recompense without measure."
The author of the yama-/-rfl/ajer, concurring with the opinion
of other commentators, says that the phrase "God's earth is
spacious," alludes to the Prophet's command to his true
followers, who were oppressed at Mecca, to flee for refugees in
Abyssinia, then governed by a Christian king. To this succeeds
the passage the purport of which is given in the second para
of Dr. Hunter's Sermon. The word "strangled" is not the
correct equivalent for the word used in the original. The
passage in the original simply means— "If we speak the truth,
we are stifled and opposed by the people, viz., Musalmans, who
are inimical to Wahabi-ism." In a foot-note of his work, the
abovenamed author prays God to grant His graces, so that he
may die in Mecca or Medina, and that his bones may lie there,
as, by the favour of God, his teacher, Moulavi Ishak, died
and was buried in one of the holy cities. I think my readers
will allow that a man in whose heart the religious element
predominates, whatever be his faith or creed, invariably longs
for such things, and exhorts others to do likewise. Let us
quote the words of the same writer in the Calcutta- Review —
words which Dr. Hunter has wisely omitted: — "The doctrine
of Hijrat is not peculiar to the religion of Islam, but is common
to it and Christianity. The pilgrim, the Crusader who aspired
to lay their bones in Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic who
desired to spend his last days in Rome, have all been actuated
by the same motive — to pass the closing days of their life in
some holy place in which the probability of temptation to sin is
diminished." Were the latter doctrine (Hijrat) true as regards
India, Dr. Hunter would soon be relieved of the presence of
the Musalmans whom he styles seditious and dangerous to
Government.

Either one or the other supposition is the correct one, so that
Dr. Hunter stands convicted either of intentionally misleading
the public or of "ignorance profound." I will now give a
sufnmary of the work, merely begging my readers to bear in
mind the fact that the " Khyber Hills on our Punjab frontier"
of Dr. Hunter are hills of the same name situated near Medina !
The following is my summary which may be relied upon as
correct : —

'* About the end of the world, there will be a war between
the Sultan of Turkey and a Christian King. Two Christian
Ki)igs will assist the Sultan (just as the late Sultan was helped
in the Crimean campaign). After a war of varying success in
the plains of Syria, the Sultan will, at last, aided by his Chris-
tian allies, come off victorious. After this, a dispute will arise
between the troops of the Sultan and those of his Christian
allies for the glory of the triumph ; the latter Vv'ill claim it as the
victory of the Cross, while the former will claim it as the
triumph of Islam. The dispute will at length end in the fall of
the Sultan, and in the alliance of the three Christian chiefs, v/z,
the two allies and the opponent of the Sultan. Thesi ttiree
allies will occupy the whole of the Turkish Empire, and will then
extend their dominion as far as the Khyber Hills near Medina.
When events have arrived at this point, Mahomedans, supposing
that the time for the fulfilment of the prophecy regarding the
advent of Imam Mahdi is nigh, will search for him. He will be
at Medina at the time, but will soon after go to Mecca where
they will all flock to him. Shortly after, a chief of Khorasan*
will also march out of his country to visit him in that Holy
City. The Imam will then collect a force with which he will
defeat the Christians, and will establish the faith and kingdom
Islam throughout the greater portion of the world. After this,
Anti-Christ is to appear, and to try to vanquish the Imam ; but
in the meantime Christ will descend from heaven in the mosque

* Vide page 42, and compare this fact with Dr. Hunter's fourth line in
page 42 : — " Had not Mohamud himself said, 'When you see the black flags
comine from Khorasan, go forth, for with them is a Caliph,, the Envoy of
God "

lOth verse, chapter 39, of the Holy Koran, which runs thus : —
"Say O my servants who believe, fear your Lord. They who
are good in this world shall obtain good in the next ; and
God's earth is spacious : verily those who persevere with
patience shall receive their recompense without measure."
The author of the yama-/-r<7/br5er, concurring with the opinion
of other commentators, says that the phrase "God's earth is
spacious," alludes to the Prophet's command to his true
followers, who were oppressed at Mecca, to flee for refugees in
Abyssinia, then governed by a Christian king. To this succeeds
the passage the purport of which is given in the second para
of Dr. Hunter's Sermon. The word "strangled" is not the
correct equivalent for the word used in the original. The
passage in the original simply means — "If we speak the truth,
we are stifled and opposed by the people, viz., Musulmans, who
are inimical to Wahabi-ism." In a foot-note of his work, the
abovenamed author prays God to grant His graces, so that he
may die in Mecca or Medina, and that his bones may lie there,
as, by the favour of God, his teacher, Moulavi Ishak, died
and was buried in one of the holy cities. I think my readers
will allow that a man in whose heart the religious element
predominates, whatever be his faith or creed, invariably longs
for such things, and exhorts others to do likewise. Let us
quote the words of the same writer in the Calcutta- Review —
words which Dr. Hunter has wisely omitted: — "The doctrine
of Hijrat is not peculiar to the religion of Islam, but is common
to it and Christianity. The pilgrim, the Crusader who aspired
to lay their bones in Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic who
desired to spend his last days in Rome, have all been actuated
by the same motive — to pass the closing days of their life in
some holy place in which the probability of temptation to sin is
diminished." Were the latter doctrine (Hijrat) true as regards
India, Dr. Hunter would soon be relieved of the presence of
the Musalmans whom he styles seditious and dangerous to
Government.

Either one or the other supposition is the correct one, so that
Dr. Hunter stands convicted either of intentionally misleading
the public or of "ignorance profound." I will now give a
summary of the work, merely begging my readers to bear in
mind the fact that the " Khyber Hills on our Punjab frontier"
of Dr. Hunter are hills of the same name situated near Medina I
The following is my summary which may be relied upon as
correct : —

'* About the end of the world, there will be a war between
the Sultan of Turkey and a Christian King. Two Christian
Kings will assist the Sultan (just as the late Sultan was helped
in the Crimean campaign). After a war of varying success in
the plains of Syria, the Sultan will, at last, aided by his Chris-
tian allies, come off victorious. After this, a dispute will arise
between the troops of the Sultan and those of his Christian
allies for the glory of the triumph ; the latter Vv'ill claim it as the
victory of the Cross, while the former will claim it as the
triumph of Islam. The dispute will at length end in the fall of
the Sultan, and in the alliance of the three Christian chiefs, viz,
the two allies and the opponent of the Sultan, Thesj tiiree
allies will occupy the whole of the Turkish Empire, and will then
extend their dominion as far as the Khyber Hills near Medina.
When events have arrived at this point, Mahomedans, supposing
that the time for the fulfilment of the prophecy regarding the
advent of Imam Mahdi is nigh, will search for him. He will be
at Medina at the time, but will soon after go to Mecca where
they will all flock to him. Shortly after, a chief of Khorasan*
will also march out of his country to visit him in that Holy
City. The Imam will then collect a force with which he will
defeat the Christians, and vv'ill establish the faith and kingdom
Islam throughout the greater portion of the world. After this,
Anti-Christ is to appear, and to try to vanquish the Imam ; but
in the meantime Christ will descend from heaven in the mosque

* Vide page 42, and compare this fact with Dr. Hunter's fourth line in
page 42 :— " Had not Mohamud himself said, 'V/hen you see the black flags
coming from Khorasan, go forth, for with them is a Caliph, the Envoy of
God "

of Damascus, and lending his assistance to Imam Mahdi, they
will both subvert Anti-Christ's power. Several oiher events of
minor importance are afterwards to take place, and at last the
world will come to an end." So much for Dr. Hunter's
"KhyDer Hills." In concluding my remarks on this work^ I
would remark that its contents are regarded by Musalmans in
t^eneral as mere traditions. Learned Mahomedan divines have
no faith in them, and I deem them as true as any* modern
sensational novel. ''

The seventh work mentioned by Dr. Hunter is Takyviat-ul-
Iman. An English translation of this work was published in
the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol, 13 of 1852. Every
Englishman can read this work for himself ; a perusal of a few
pages will show how little connection it has with Wahabi-ism and
jihad. The eighth work is Tazkirat-uI-Akhawi. I am unacquaint-
ed with this work, nor did I ever hear that Moulavi Ismail of
Delhi wrote such a work. From its title, it appears to be a book
containing useful and instructive matter. The ninth work,
Nasihat-ul-Musalmin. consists of five chapters. The first chapter
describes Paganism; the second, the impudence and foolishness of
Pagans; the third shows that, to worship any created things as god
is Paganism ; the fourth describes the customs of Mahomedan
Pagans; and the fifth, the punishment ordained by God to Pagans.
Throughout the work, I, however, find no passage \^hich could be
regarded as likely to instigate even to wage holy war against
Government. The tenth work is Hidayat-ul-Muminin. I know
only one book of this name, and it treats of Taziadari. The
eleventh on the list is an Arabic work, Tanwir-ul-Ainain, which
was printed in Calcutta with an Urdu translation. It says not
a single word regarding holy war, and merely contains
discussions as to whether both hands should be lifted up on
a certain occasion during prayer, or not. The full title of the
work is Tanwir-ul-Ainain fi-isbat-i-rafi-il Yadain, which signifies
"light of the eyes to show or prove that both hands should
be raised during prayer." Why Dr. Hunter should associate
this work with jihad is more than I can comprehend. The

twelfth, /I ti/jv/J/i, is a work written iong before the existence
of Syed Ah:nad and Moulavi Ismail, by Moulavi Shah Wali-
uilah, grandfather of Moulavi Ismail, who died in 1174 Hijra,
or 1760 A. D. It also treats nowhere of jihad, and simply
discusses the doctrine whether man should follow the dictates
of his own reason ani understanding in matters of religion, or
should follow implicitly the learned m;n who have lived before
him. The full name of th's work is Akdul-Jid fi Ahkamil
Ijtehad-i-vat-taklid. It appears, the learned Doctor has
mistaken the word Ijtehad, which means "to use one's own
reason and understanding," for jihad, and consequently fails
into the error of supposing that it relates to entering on religious
war ! The thirteenth, is Tamhihul-Ghaflin, in Urdu. It is a
small treatise written by Syed Ahmed for his followers and
other Mahomedans. In the introductory part of the book, he
speaks of the transitoriness of this world, and exhorts men to
avoid its temptations to the utmost of their ability. In the
body of the book, he interdicts his followers from worshipping
any created as they v;ould worship the Almighty God. Not
a single word regarding jihad will be found in it. With regard
to the fourteenth work, Arbain or Chlliil Hadis, I have only to
remark that, we find many such selections of forty verses from
the sayings of Prophet Mahomet, not recently compiled and
published ; but I have never hitherto met with any that was ever
compiled by a Wahabi or that contained instigations to jihad.

I now come to the so-called Wahabi Sermon for Hijrat as
given by Dr. Hunter at page 49 of his work. The first portion
of the Sermon is taken from the Calcutta Review, Chapter
11, page 393, and the second, from Jama-i-Tafaser. An English
translation of the latter is, however, given at page 391 of the
abovementioned number of the Calcutta Review. As regards
the fis.-t para, of the Sermon, the writer of the Calcutta Review
article cites no authority for his quotation. The second para,
taken from the Jama-i-Tafaser, has suffered at the hands of the
translator, as will be seen in the sequel. The author of the
Jama-i-Tafaser, in the passage above referred to, comments the

lOlh verse, chapter 39, of the Holy Koran, v\hich luns thus : —
"Say O ray servants who believe, fear your Lord. They who
are good in this world shall obtain good in the next ; and
God's earth is spacious : verily those who persevere with
patience shall receive their recompense without measure."
The author of the /omfl-/-7'q/fl5er, concurring v\ith the opinion
of other commentators, says that the phrase "God's earth is
spacious," alludes to the Prophet's command to his true
followers, who were oppressed at Mecca, to flee for refugees in
Abyssinia, then governed by a Christian king. To this succeeds
the passage the purport of which is given in the second para
of Dr. Hunter's Sermon. The word "strangled" is not the
correct equivalent for the word used in the original. The
passage in the original simply means— "If we speak the truth,
we are stifled and opposed by the people, viz., Musulmans, who
are inimical to Wahabi-ism." In a foot-note of his work, the
abovenamed author prays God to grant His graces, so that he
may die in Mecca or Medina, and that his bones may lie there,
as, by the favour of God, his teacher, Moulavi Ishak, died
and was buried in one of the holy cities. I think my readers
will allow that a man in whose heart the religious element
predominates, whatever be his faith or creed, invariably longs
for such things, and exhorts others to do likewise. Let us
quote the words of the same writer in the Calcutta- Review —
words which Dr. Hunter has wisely omitted: — "The doctrine
of Hijrat is not peculiar to the religion of Islam, but is common
to it and Christianity. The pilgrim, the Cruiader who aspired
to lay their bones in Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic who
desired to spend his last days in Rome, have all been actuated
by the same motive — to pass the closing days of their life in
some holy place in which the probability of temptation to sin is
diminished." Were the latter doctrine (Hijrat) true as regards
India, Dr. Hunter would soon be relieved of the presence of
the Musalmans whom he styles seditious and dangerous to
Government.

supplies of vegetable produce, profit in the trade or business
carried on by men, absence of danger and calamity, increase
in the wealth of the people, and increase in the number of men
of art and learning. All these advantages, increased a hundred-
fold, are conferred upon men when the dignity of the true faith
is upheld, when the rank or position of the kings of the true
faith is exalted, when their rule prevails in many countries,
when the army of a king of the true faith is powerful, and
when the laws of the true faith (Shara) are enforced and
promulgated in these countries. But look at this country —
India, as compared with Turkey and Tartary, as far as the
blessings of Heaven are concerned. Nay, compare the present
state of Hindustan in this year 1233 Hijra (A. D, 1818), when
the greater portion of it has become Dar-ul-Harb, with the
state of India some two or three centuries back, and contrast
the blessings of Heaven now vouchsafed and the number of
learned and pious men with those of that period." In addition
to having translated this passage badly. Dr. Hunter has omitted
altogether the phrase "accurate experience"— the very gist of
the whole extract. Now Moulavi Ismail, while v/riting the
foregoing, was treating generally of the subject of jihad, which
is binding on all Mahomedans when the conditions under
which it is to be waged exist. He alluded to no nation in
particular — Sikh, Hindu, or English ; and to extract a portion
of the work, which, like all Mahomedan religious treatises,
contains a chapter on jihad, and thereby to lead his readers to
conclude that the extract in question was specially issued
against the English, was most unfair of Dr. Hunter, in
treating of the justness of rulers, conscientiousness of suitors,
and liberality of the rich, Moulavi Ismail did not only imply
the justness, &c., of Mahomedan rulers. He said that these
qualities would be the source of Heaven's blessings to all those
who possessed them — of whatever faith they might be. Dr.
Hunter seizes on the comparison by Moulavi Ismail of the state
of India in the nineteenth and seventeenth centuries as shewing
an animus against the British Government. He has overlooked

the fact that up to the middle of the cighteemh ceniury, India
was under a Mahomedan Government, which the Moulavj
therefore condemns equally with that of 1818 ! Had the Moulavi
lived in the middle of last century, I scarcely think that he
would have preached a jihad against his own Government.
Dr. Hunter has also apparently overlooked the word Dar-ul-

//arZ? (wrongly translated by him as "country of the enemy,"
which, according to his own showing, would prevent all good
Musalmans from rebelling !

The following are extracts from the learned Doctor's own
article in the Englishman of the 16th May 1871 :—

"We have shown that according to the authoriative
Mahomedan texts, India has ceased to be a country of Islam,
and become a country of the enemy {Dar-uI-IIarb)."

*' But we have abundantly proven, in our former articles,
that India has ceased to be a country of Islam, and lapsed into
a country of the enemy. The present generation of Musalmans
are bound, according to their own texts, to accept the status quo.
They are not responsible for it, and they are not bound, in the
face of God's providence and the immense perils in which a
revolt would involve the True Faith, to have recourse to arms."

Having thus shown that Sirat-ul-Mustakim, the first of the
14 works with regard to which Dr. Hunter says (page 46)— "The
mere titles of its (the VVahabi sect's) favorite works suffice to
shew their almost uniformly treasonable character" — has no
connection whatever with a jihad against Government, I will
now say a few words as to the prophetic song given at page 45
and 46, and to shew that Dr. Hunter is also in error as to its
purport. This stanza, as also the 'poem by Moulavi Karam Ali
of Ca wnpur, was co.nposed and circulated some time between

1824 and 1830, /. e., when Syed Ahmed was waging y//ja^ against
the Sikhs. It, as well as the other works which Dr. Hunter
has introduced, certainly serves to embellish his book; but it
fails to maintain or strengthen his arguments as to the
obligalion of the Mahomedans to rebel against the Queen, there
being no single word in the translation of the verses to show
that they were intended to excite the followers of Islam against
Government. My readers have only to remember the time of
its promulgation to see to whom its exhortations refer ; and I
therefore leave it to their sense of fairness to judge whether the
following sentence of Dr. Hunter's, which immediately succeeds
this poem (page 46), is true or not : — "But any attempt at even
the briefest epitome of the VVahabi treatises in prose and
verse on the duty to wage war against the English would fill a
volume."

The third work named by our author is Shir-i-Wikaya,
An Arabic work of this name, written some hundreds of years
ago, and containing doctrines of the Hanafi church, is known
to me as well as to the rest of the Mahom.edan world. It may
be a favorite work of the Wahabis. but it was in existence Ion a
before the development of that sect in India ; and it inculcates,
as the Doctor himself admits, (foot note 3, page 46), holy war
only when the Infidel oppresses the true Believers.

The fourth work, viz.. Prophetic Poem, foretelling the down-
fall of the British power, and a few more prophecies at page 43,
were first published by Saint Vali Nyamut Ullah, a dervish of
Cashmere, who died in 1028 Hijra, or 1618 A.D. In his descrip-
tion of the principal tenets of the Wahabi faith, our author
states that they do not recognize saints as possessing any super-
natural powers. Strange, therefore, that he should maintain
that they place any reliance in the poem alluded to. Even
Mahomedans, who worship saint's graves, regard their sayings
as unreliable. Such verses are generally written by astrologers
and by men pretending to a knowledge of Ramal and Jafar.
We find at the same time good men also enunciating such pro-
phecies with, however, no evil intentions. Christian clergymen.

as my readers will allow, sometimes determine the end of the
world, the downfall of Fiance, Turkey, &c. — basing their pro-
phecies on the revelation of St. John. I think, however, that
men possessing even a small modicum of common sense will
smile at such prophecies, and will scarcely put much faith in
them. Wahabis believe in no prophecy. Their faith teaches
them that no man, not even Muhammad himself, had any know-
ledge of futurity — vidp. the following verse, 188, 7th Chapter of
the Holy Koran : — '* Say (ye Mahomet) I am able neither to
procure advantage unto myself, nor to avert mischief from me
but as God pleaseth. If I knew the secrets of God, I should
surely enjoy abundance of good, neither should evil befall me.
Verily I am no other than a denouncer of threats, and a messen-
ger of good tidings unto people who believe."

The fifth work, Tawa rikh-i- Kaiser- i- Rum, has also no con-
nection whatever with Wahabi literature. It is an historical
work written in Arabic by Ibrahim Effendi, in the service of the
Turkish Government. An abstract of the above work was pub-
lished in Persian at Cawnpore in 1821 Hijra (1864 A.D.), and
contains, amongst other matters, an account of the battles
fought between the Wahabis and the Turks in the reign of sultan
Mahmood I.

With reference to the sixth work, A^ar-i-Mahshar, written
by Moulavi Muhammad AH, our author says :— " It fortells a
war in the Khyber Hills on the Punjab frontier, where the English
will first vanquish the .Faithful, whereupon the Mahomedans
will make search for their true Imam. Then there will be a
battle lasting four days, ending in the complete overthrow of the
English, * even the very smell of Government being driven out
of their heads and brains.' Thereafter the Imam Mahdi will
appear, and the Mihomedans, being now the rulers of India,
will flock to m^et him at Mecca. These events will be heralded
in by an eclipse both of the sun and moon in the month of
Ramzan." Now, I frankly confess that I am at a loss what to
think of Dr. Hunter. I can scarcely believe that he intended to
deceive or mislead his readers ;' but at the same time, I can
hardly credit him with such gross ignorance as is here evinced.

My reply to Dr. Hunter's question is therefore that in no
case would it be the religious duty of any Mahomedan to
renounce the Aman of the English, and render help to the
invader. Should they do so, they would be regarded as sinners
against their faith, as they would then break that holy covenant
which binds subjects to their rulers, and which it is the duty of
the former to keep sacred to the last. I cannot, however, predict
what the actual conduct of the Musalmans would be in the event
of an invasion of India by a Mahomedan or any other power.
He would be a bold man indeed who would answer for more
than his intimate friends and relations, perhaps not even for
them. The civil wars in England saw fathers fighting against
sons, and brothers against brothers ; and no one can tell what
the conduct of a whole community would be in any great
political convulsion. I have no doubt, but that the
Musalmans would do what their political status — favorable or
the contrary — would prompt them to do. I think Dr. Hunter's
crucial question might be put to the Hindu as well as to the
Mahomedan community. It would be but fair to both parties.

The fourth chapter of Dr. Hunter's work deals with a most

interesting subject, but it is to be regretted that it contains little

that is really practical, or really useful, to the Mahomedan

community or to the Government of India. I will confine my

remarks to a few of the points touched upon bv our author.

At page 109, he says: — "The powers of arrest granted by the

Legislature to the Executive enable the G overnment to deal with

the evil. The ringleaders suffer the penalty of personal restraint,

without obtaining the glory of a public appearance on behalf

of their faith. Even those who are sentenced to transportation

for life by the courts are treated with contemptuous leniency

by the Government, being generally returned in a few years to

the Mahomedan community as apostates to the Wahabi cause."

Unfortunately, Dr. Hunter ignores two natural and most

important political principles: — 1st. — That it is a recognized

law that the more a sect is persecuted on account of its faith.

the more tenaciously will its members cling to it. Had not the
Christian faith suffered as it did in its earlier days, it would
never have reached the high pinnacle upon which it is now
established. Had Islam not been persecuted at Mecca, it would
never have been the religion of the many millions now followers
of Muhammad, the Prophet of God. Dr. Hunter's assertion
that the Musalmans, who are once transported, return from
banishment, apostates to the Wahabi cause, is, therefore, let me
assure him, in the highest degree incorrect. 2ndly.— As it is in
thes interests of Government that the really guilty only should
be punished, it is equally a grave political error to punish those
who are regarded as innocent. The more a Government
blunders in this respect, the more it gives cause to its enemies
to triumph. Unjust and indiscriminate punishment not only
inflames and exasperates the minds of the seditious, but also
grieves and alienates those who are its true well-wishers. At
page 109, Dr. Hunter says :— "For there is no use shutting our
ears to the fact that the Indian Mahomedan arraign us on a list
of charges as serious as have ever been brought against a
Government. They accuse us of having closed every honorable
walk of life to professors of their creed. They accuse us of
having introduced a system of education which leaves their
whole community, unprovided for, and which has landed it in
contempt and beggary. They accuse us of having brought misery
into thousands of families, by abolishing their law-officers, who
gave the sanction of religion to the marriage-tie, and who, from
time immemorial, have been the depositories and administrators
of the Domestic Law of Islam. They accuse us of imperilling
their souls by denying them the means of performing the duties
of their faith. Above all, they charge us with deliberate
malversation of their religious foundations, and with
misappropriation on the largest scale of their religious funds."
It is not unreasonable that a certain portion of the Mahomedan
community should bring such charges against Government ;
but enlightened Mahomedans are perfectly aware that they
cannot expect the lamc regard for their customs and for their

system of education from a foreign Government, as they enjoyed
under rulers of their own faith. Let us just recall what our
conduct was when we Mahomedans held sway in Spain, and
when we first conquered India. Spaniards and Hindus would
have been glad to possess a moiety of the benefits which we,
in common with the Hindus, enjoy under the present rulers of
India. The abolition of the offices of Kazis, who gave religious
sanction to the marriage-tie, was, with regard to the political
status of the present century, a grave political error. It
interferred, however, in no way with our faith, though the
uneducated opined it did. According to Islam, marriage is
simply a contract of union for life between man and woman.
In smne cases, the presence of two witnesses is deemed
necessary, but not the presence of the Kazi or any priest.
The Kazis of India were, as perhaps our author is not aware
of, the most illiterate class of men, and the better class of
Mahomedans had but little respect for them. If our Govern-
ment has abused our religious foundations and misappropriated
our educational funds, it is fortunate for us that the law
sanctions our arraigning it before its own courts of justice.
Thank God ! this course is always open to us. Again at
page 110, Dr. Hunter says: — "They (Mahomedans) accuse us
of imperilling their souls by denying them the means of per-
forming the duties of their faith," I do not perceive his
meaning. If he allude to the Government interference in the
matter of Musalman holiday festivals, I disagree with him. In
noplace in British India are such festivals disallowed to Mahome-
dans.

Dr. Hunter then describes at length the causes which havel
impoverished the Mahomedan community, and accuses Govern-!
ment of neglecting to educate that portion of its Indian subjects.!
I cannot hold Government wholly responsible for this. He says
that Mahomedans do not avail themselves of the Govern-
ment system of education — because, "the truth is that our system
of public instruction, which has awakened the Hindus from the

sleep of centuries, and quickened their inert masses with some of
thenobleirapulsesofanation.isopposed to the traditions, unsuit-
ed to the requirements, and hateful to the religion of the Musal-
mans." There is a good deal of truth in this sentence; and I only
join issue with Dr. Hunter on the last clause, viz, that the system
is regarded as "hateful to the religion of the Musalmans." Dr.
Hunter connects this with disaffection and disloyalty to Govern-
ment ; but as this is only his own opinion, I meet it with mine,
and maintain that he is mistaken. As regards the present system
of education, so eagerly embraced by the Hindus, but so repug-
nant to the ideas of Mahomedans, it must be borne in mind how
wide is the difference between the two races. There are numerous
classes of Hindus who are never in the of habit discussing the doc-
trines of their faith. They, therefore, had no objection to be edu-
cated in that which was even opposed to it. Mahomedans are,
however, bound to know all the tenets of their faith, to discuss
them, and to regulate their lives accordingly. It is on this acco-
unt that they have hitherto refrained from availing themselves of
an education taught through the medium of a foreign tongue, and
which they therefore deem opposed to their belief. All history
proves that the introduction of new theories, opposed to any
established belief, was invariably regarded with suspicion and
contempt. Socrates was condemned by his idolatrous fellow-
contrymen to die for his belief in one god. The Copernican
system was once hateful to many Christians, and those who
embraced its doctrines were sometimes visited with capital
punishment. Luther's was not a bed of roses. When Mahom-
edans adopted the Greek system of philosophy, many were the
anathemas of the faithful. The theory of geologists of the
earth being older than it is stated to be in the Bible, raised a
storm of indignation amongst orthodox Christains. The present
age is one of progress, but Rome was not built in a day. It is
not to be expected that Mahomedans, who are made of much
sterner material than Hindus, will adapt themselves so readily
to the various phases of this changing age. Let us have time,
let us live, work, and wait. There are many reformers now

at work, a fact v/hich Dr. Hunter does not, however, appear
to be aware of. The system which Dr. Hunter recommends
for the education of Mahomdans does not commend itself to
rae, nor do I think to be practicable. The object which he aims
at will never be obtained by Government interference, but will
certainly come to pass by our own exertions. At page 161, Dr,
Hunter writes : — "We should thus at length have the Mahom-
cdan youth educated upon our own plan. Without interfering
in any way with their religion, and in the very process
of enabling them to learn their religious duties, we should
render that religion perhaps less sincere, but certainly
less fanatical. The rising generation of Mahomedans
would tread the steps which have conducted the Hindus, not
long ago the most bigoted nation upon earth, into their present
state of easy tolerance. Such a tolerance implies a less earnest
belief than their fathers had, but it has freed them, as it would
liberate the Musalmans, from the cruelties which they inflicted,
the crimes which they perpetrated, and the miseries wkich they
endured in the name of a mistaken religion. I do not permit
myself here to touch upon the means by which, through a state
of indifference, the Hindus and Musalmans alike may yet reach
a higher level of belief. But I firmly believe that day will come ;
and that our system of education, which has hitherto produced
only negative virtues, is the first, although distant stage towards
it. Hitherto the English in India have been but poor iconoclasts
after all." I cannot compliment our author upon a straight-
forward system of education. If Government do not deal openly
and fairly with its Mahomedan subjects, if it deals with them
in the underhand way recommended by Dr. Hunter, I foresee
much trouble both in our days and hereafter. Let it openly de-
clare in Macaulay's words that, "the present system tends not <
to accelerate the progress of truth, but to delay the natural death;
of expiring errors ; that it gives an artificial encouragement to
absurd history, to absurd metaphysics, forces a breed of scholars
whoTindFt¥eir scholarship an encumbrance and a blemish."
These words still apply to the present system of education,
though written as long ago as in 1853. Had Lord Macaulay's
able minute been fully acted up to, we should have very different

story to tell of education in this country. Tiiis is not, however
the place for a dissertation on the education of the people of
India. I shall, at some future time, publish my views in their
entirety on thii important subject. The evils that now exist,
however, owe their origin greatly to the want of union and
sympathy between the rulers and the ruled, and ideas like Dr.
Hunter's only tend to widen the gap. I admit that owing to the
difference in the mode of life, there is but a limited number of
native gentlemen with whom European gentlemen can have
cordial intercourse ; but this number will, I trust, increase largely
every year. Let sympathy and confidence be instilled into the
minds of the native community, and this desirable consumm-
ation is not far off. Let Government also try to remove the
impression now prevalent amongst Mahomedans, that it is
inimical to them, and desires their degradation. In conclusion,
although cordially thanking Dr. Hunter for the good feeling
which he at times evinces towards my fellow-countrymen, I
cannot but regret the style in which he has written. I cannot
divest myself of the idea that when he commenced his work,
he was more imbued with the desire to further the interests of
Mahomedans in India than is afterwards apparent in his pages.
This Wahabi conspiracy has, I think, influenced his mind as
he wrote ; and he has allowed himself to be carried away by it.
His work was politically a grave, and in a minor degree, an
historical mistake. It is, however, hard, as I have already said,
for one of the minority to attempt to remove the impression
which literary skill like Dr. Hunter's has undoubtedly made on
the minds of the Indian public. This impression was as regards
the native community, heightened by Dr. Hunter's work having
re ceived the approbation of the highest functionary in India.
I could not, however, in justic to myself and my co-religionists,
have kept silence when such erroneous statements were thrown
broadcast over the land. I have striven as much as in me lay
j to refute the errors published by Dr. Hunter, and although
j my efforts may have been in vain, I feel that I have done my
'duty.

APPENDICES

: o :

APPENDIX I.

DECISION OF THE MECCA LAW DOCTORS
{The Heads of the three Great Musalman Sects).

Question.

'What is your opinion (may your greatness continue for
ever) on this question : Whether the country of Hindustan, the
Rulers of which are Christians, and who do not interfere with
all the injunctions of Islam, such as the ordinary daily Prayers,
the Prayers of the two I'ds etc., but do authorize departure
from a few of the injunctions of Islam, such as the permission
to inherit the property of his Muhammadan ancestor to one who
changes his religion (being that of his ancestors), and becomes
a Christian, is Dar-ul-Islam or not ? Answer the above, for
which God will reward you.'

Answer No. I.

'All praises are due to the Almighty, who is the Lord of all the
Creation! O Almighty, increase my knowledge!

As long as even some af the peculiar observances of Islam prevail in

it, it is Dar-ul-Islam.
The Almighty is Omniscient, Pure, and High !
j This is the Order passed by one who hopes for the secret favour

of the Almighty, who praises God, and prays for blessings

and peace on his Prophet.

(Signed) Jamal Ibn-i-Abdullah Shaikh Umar-ul-Hanafi,

1»HW| Mil ■ ■ --

the present Mufti of Mecca (the Honoured). May God
favour him and his father.'

Answer No. II.

All praises are due to God, who is One ; and may the blessings
of God be showered upon our Chief, Muhammad, and upon
his descendants and companions, and upon the followers of
his Faith !

O God ! I require guidance from Thee in righteousness.
Yes ! As long as even some of the peculiar observances of Islam
prevail in it, it is Dar-ul-Islam.

The Almighty is Omniscient, Pure, and High !

This is written by one who hopes for salvation from the God of
mercy. May God forgive him, and his parents and
preceptors, and brothers and friends, and all Muham-
madans.

(Signed) Ahmad Bin Zaini Dahlan, Mufti of the Shafi
Sect of Mecca (the Protected).

Answer No. III.

'All praises arc due to God, who is One ! O ! Almighty !
increase my knowledge !

'// is written in the Commentary of Dasoki that a Country of Islam
does not become Dar-ul-Harb as soon as it passes into the
hands of the Infidels, but only when all or most of the injunc-
tions of Islam disappear therefrom.

God is Omniscient! May the blessings of God be showered upon
our Chief, Muhammad, and on his descendants and
companions.

(Signed) Written by Husain Bin Ibrahim, Mufti of th«
Maliki Sect of Mecca (the Illustrious).

Ill

APPENDIX II.

THE DECISION OF THE LAW DOCTORS OF NORTHERN

INDIA.

Translation of the Istifta or Question, put by Syyid Amir

HusAiN, Personal Assistant to the Commissioner of

Bhagalpur.

What is your Decision, O men of learning and expounders
of the law of Islam, in the following ? — ^

Whether a Jihad is lawful in India, a country formerly held
by a Muhammadan ruler, and now held under the sway of a
Christian Government, where the said Christian Ruler does in
no way interfere with his Muhammadan subjects in the Rites
prescribed by their Religion, such as Praying, Fasting, Pilgrimage,
Zakat, Friday Prayer, andJama'at, and gives them fullest protec-
tion and liberty in the above respects in the same way as a Muham-
madan Ruler would do, and where the Muhammadan subject
have no strength and means to fight with their rulers ; on the
contrary, there is every chance of the war, if waged, ending with
a defeat, and thereby causing an indignity to Islam.

Please answer, quoting your authority.

Fatwa dated the 17th Rebeeoossanee, 1287 H., correspon-
ding with the 17th July, 1870.

The Musalman here are protected by Christians, and there
is no Jihad in a country where protection is afforded, as the
absence of protection and liberty between Musalmans and
Infidels is essential in a religious war, and that condition does
not exist here. Besides, it is necessary that there should be a
probability of victory to Musalman and glory to the Islams.
If there be no such probability, the Jihad is unlawful.

Here the Moulavis quote Arabic passages from Manhajul
Ghaflfar and the Fatawa-i-Alamgiri, supporting the above
Decision.

like manner the Mahomedans dwell in obedience to the laws
and Government of the British, who extend to them the canopy
of their protection ; and this obedience is nothing more than
the proper and bounden duty of their Mahomedan subjects, as
inculcated and enforced by the precepts of our religion.

Now, although it is well known that the Government has
not hitherto opposed any obstacle to the free use and observance
of the ordinances of their religious subjects, and also, that it
will not do so in the time to come, for the Queen in her Proc-
lamation has graciously given a guarantee to that effect ; yet,
allowing for the sake of argument, that this neutarality were vio-
lated, still even then the Mahomedans would not be justified
in rebelling against the Government. All that they could do
under such circumstances would be to expatriate themselves.

In one of the commentaries on the Alkoran called Tw/ieer
Ahmud&e, it is written, that if any person is debarred the privi-
lege of worshiping God in conformity with his education and
belief, by reason of the arbitrary edicts, of Tyrants of Kaffirs,
he is perfectly justified in withdrawing into another country,
under the Government of which he may be permited that liberty
of conscience, which was despotically denied to him in the land
of his birth or adoption."

APPENDIX IV.

A LETTER FROM SYED AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, C. S. I., TO THE
EDITOR OF THE PIONEER, PUBLISHED IN THE ISSUE OF
THE 4th APRIL, 1871.

Dear Sir,— It is to be regretted that certain Anglo-Indian
journals have misinterpreted the Futwa alluded to in your article
of to-day's issue, and have deduced therefrom that Mahomedans
in India would be justified in waging war against our Govern-
ment were the prospects of success certain.

VII

As a staunch well-wisher of the British Government, and at
the same time as a well-wisher to true Wahabeeism, I venture
to claim the indulgence of space for those few lines in your next
issue. It may shock some of my worthy friends to see me
standing forth as the friend of Wahbeeism, but I trust they will
acquit me from the imputation of being a Whabee in the sense
of being a Wahabee conspirator. Wahabeeism, as exem-
plified by certain misguided men in India, is not Wahabeeism
at all ; and those who are really guilty of conspiring against
Government are not acting up to the principles of their religious
tenets. I say " reaDy guilty" advisedly, as I have no doubt in
ray own mind that some persons, whose names I do not like
to mention, were falsely imputed with such charges through the
enmity and spite of certain parties. The true nature of the
Wahabee case now pending in the Patna Court is unknown to
me.

As regards the portion of the Fatwa above alluded to, as
having been misinterpreted by the Englismen and other journals,
I will now say a few words. The learned Moulavis, under
whose authority the Futwa has been given out, declare Jihad
against Government to be unlawful and unwarranted by the
Mahomedan religion, and in support of their verdict quote the
following precepts : —

I. Mahomedans who live under the protection of a Go-
vernment professing a different faith, are not justified in declar-
ing a religious war against it.

II. When there exists a treaty or peace between Mahom-
edans and some other people of a different religion, Jihad
against the latter is unlawful.

III. Jihad is allowable when there is every probability of
victory to Mahomedans and glory to Islam.

It is the last which has caused the mistake into which
Anglo-Indian journals has fallen, which has made them opine

VIII

that were the Mahomedans strong enough to cope with the
British, those in India would be justified in rising in rebellion
against Government. This is a perfectly erroneous interpre-
tation of the clause in question. Its real meaning is that when
of two independent kingdoms, the one is Mahomedan, and
the other of a different faith, when there is no treaty between
the two, and when in the non-Mahomedan country Mahomedans
are ill-treated and are interdicted from preaching their religion,
then the followers of Mahomed are enjoined to consider their
strength and chances of success ; and should they deem the
later likely, they are then to draw the sword for the glory and
welfare of Islam. For example, should the king of Persia think
his chances against the Russian Emperor good, should that
Emperor ill-treat Mahomedans, he would be justified, according
to his religion, in declaring war at once. This not being the
case, he is justified in remaining quite. The Mahomedans in
India are, as shown in the Futwa, in no way justified in engaging
in any project having for its object the subversion of the English
Government. They have perfect freedom of speech, and no
one interferes with their religion ; and even were their religion
interferes with, their proper course, according to the Mahom-
edan religion, would be to leave the country, and not to rebel
against Government.

As regards the Wahabees in India, as far as my experience
goes, their principles are identical with those of other Mahom-
edans as regards the unlawfulness of a Jihad against our Gover-
nment. In 1857, when Bakht Khan was in Dehli, and end-
eavoured to compel the Moulavis of that city to issue a Futwa,
declaring a Jihad against the British Government lawful, two
persons, both Wahabees, boldly opposed him, backed up though
he v^as by the bayonets of his soldiery. One of these was a
famoui Moulavi holding an influential position in Dehli. Again,
only one vVahabee joined the rebels during the Mutiny, and he
was forced to do so. I dare say I shall not be believed in my
statement that true Wahabeeism is not inimical to our Govern-

merit, and T have no doubt but that many people will abuse
me for my Wahabee proclivities. By the English I shall be
suspected as an intriguer, and by many of my ignorant fellow
coutry-men I shall be condemned as a well-wisher to the
vernment, as one who lends his name and authority towards
checking all unlawful (though in their eyes lawful) and am-
bitious schemes. I am prepared for — am indeed perfectly
accustomed to — being misunderstood by both. Such has been
my lot now for many years.

In conclusion, I will only say that I trust the Patna trial
will be closely watched both by the Government and by the
public. If the prisoners are really guilty of the offence with
which they are charged, they have been guilty of a great crime
against the true principles of their religon. Let their punish-
ment be sharp and severe. Government, however, must bear
in mind that the sects called Wahabees and Bidatis are bitter
enemies, that their feelings towards one another are as bitter
as were those of the Roman Catholics towards the Protetants
in the days of the Reformation ; and that it is therefore not at
all improbable in this land of intrigue that false charges have
been laid against innocent men, and that hundreds of false
witnesses will testify to their guilt.

APPENDIX

A LETTER FROM SYED AHMED KHAN BAHADUR, C. S. I., TO THB

EDITOR OF THE PIONEER, PUBLISHED IN THB ISSUE

OF THE 14tH APRIL, 1871.

Dear Sir, — In an article which appeared in the Englishman
of the 3rd instant, there are several points which seem to me to
deserve notice, as the statements and deductions of the writer
are calculated to leave an erroneous impression on the minds
of the English community in India. The writer, in the second

paragraph of his article, states that "the plain meaning of the
text of the Koran is that the followers of Islam shall reduce the
whole earth to obedience ; giving to every nation the
alternatives of conversion, a submission almost amounting to
slavery, or death." Doubtless, Mahomedans would be greatly
pleased were they masters of the world, but that the Koran
inculcates such conduct on the part of the conquerors is utterly
and entirely wrong. I will here quote an extract from one of
my essays on the Life of Mohammed, and would, in support of
the opinions given in the same, quote Godfrev Higgens. John
Davenport, and the great historian Gibbon. "The remark that
the 'sword is the inevitable penalty for the denial of Islam' is
one of the gravest charges falsely imputed to this faith by the
professors of other religions, and arises from the utter ignorance
of those who make the accusation. Islam inculcates and
demands a hearty and sincere belief in all that it teaches; and
that genuine faith which proceeds from a person's heart cannot
be obtained by force or violence. Judicious readers will not fail
to observe that the above quoted remark is entirely contrary to
the fundamental principles of the Moslem faith, wherein it is
inculcated, in the clearest language possible, — 'Let there be no
forcing in the religion ; the right way has been made clearly
distinguishable from the wrong one' (chap. X., 98). And also,
V I • If the Lord had pleased, all who are on the earth would have
blieved together; and wilt thou force men to be believers? No
man can believe but by the permission of God, and He will
pour out His indignation on those who will not understand.' "

The writer then proceeds to quote Abdul Aziz and Abdul
Hai m re the Futwas published by them and sums up thus:—
*• We have given these decisions word for word, and there can
be no question that up to the last four or five years the whole
Musalman community regarded British India as a country of
the enemy. In such a country the majority consider that the
Faithful are either at liberty to, or bound to, wage war against the
Infidels. The obligation is only a question of degree, and the
Mahomedan Literary Society of Calcutta, in their late pro-

ceedings, seem to assume this. But they get rid of the difficulty,
and evade the necessity for rebellion, by denying that India is
Dar-ul-Harb, and affirming that it is Dar-ul-Islam, a country of
the Faithful " I cannot congratulate the Mahomedan Literary
Society of Culcutta on their assertion that India is Dar-ul-Islam,
and of their thus evading the necessity for rebellion. India,
in spite of the Calcutta Mahomedan Literary Society, is Dar-ul-
Harb, but not in the sense in which the Englishman interprets
xi. My readers are aware that in Dar-ul-Islam, usury is
prohibited. Now, a country may be Dar-ul-Harb in two
senses,— 1st, that of its being a foreign country in which it is
lawful for Mahomedans to take interest for their money ; 2nd,
m the sense of its being lawful for the Faithful to make religious
war {jihad) upon it. India is Dar-ul-Harb in the former sense,
but not in the latter. Great Britain is Dar-ul-Harb as regards
usury, but not as regards jihad, because the treaty between it
and Turkey is binding on the latter. The writer in the
Englishman 2LSS\xmQS Xha.\. the word "Faithful" applies to the
Mahomedans in India, and that they are therefore at liberty, or
bound, to wage war against Government. This is quite an
erroneous supposition, as Mahomedans, be they dwellers in
Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam, are all prohibited from rebellion
against a Government which interfers in no way with the free
worship of their religion. The word "Faithful," as regards
jihad, applies only to the Mahomedan subjects of a Mahomedan
ruler as pointed out in my letter of the 31st ultimo. A jihad
would be perfectly lawful for such Mahomedans against an
Infidel country which oppressed Mahomedans. A jihad by the
Mahomedans of India against their rulers would be a false one,
would be a rebellion pure et simple, and the misguided men who
took part in it would, according to their religion, deserve death.
Were I to have to judge such men, my sentence, in conformity
with Mahomedan Law, on their being proved guilty, would be
in accordance with what I have now stated.

In former days two questions agitated the minds of our
forefathers in this country, v/z— (I) Was it lawful for Mahome-

XII

dans to lend money at interest here ? (2) If so, was it allowable
for Mahomcdans to reside in India ? These two points were
referred for decision to Moulvi Abdul Aziz, but not a word was
said in the reference about jihad. I would specially draw
attention to this, as it is on this question that the Englishman
and even many Mahomedans have fallen into error. Abdul
Aziz, in his reply to the first point, said that India, according
to the doctrine of Abu Hanifa, (whose followers all India
Mahomedans are) was not Dar-ul-Harb, but that it was so
according to Imam Mahomed and Imam Abu Yusuf. He him-
self ruled that India was Dar-ul-Harb as regarded the lawfulness
of taking usury. Not a word did he say about jihad. On this
Futwa appearing, the author met with reproaches on all sides,
and a refutation of his decision appeared shortly after. The
following are its sentiments: — "Under the conditions specified
you declare that India is not Dar-ul-Harb, but you then
contradict your own words and call India Dar-ul-Harb, only as
far as regards the validity of accepting interest by the Mahome-
dans of the country. This amounts to pious fraud for wordly
prosperity, but those who accept such interest cannot be free
from sin in the eyes of the Almighty." My readers may be
curious to know the person who wrote this refutation. Iti
author was no other than the founder of Wahabeeism in India,
Maulvi Ismail. A copy of the original refutation will be gladly
forwarded to the Englishman if required.

On the second question, regarding the lawfulness of
Mahomedans remaining in india, Moulvie abdul Aziz replied as
follows. I give the question and his reply word for word.

Question. — "As India in your (Abdul Aziz's) judgment is
Dar-ul-Harb, and to take interest in this country is lawful,
should the Mahomedans of India live in it, make profits, and
observe obedience to its rulers, or are they bound to abandon
the country?"

Answer. — "It is not unlawful for the Mahomedans of India
to live in this couatry, to make profits, and to obey their rulers.

XIII

10 far as their profits and obedience are not against their
religious tenets; they are under no obligation to leave the
country; because the Infidels (our rulers) have not as yet pro-
hibited them from reading their prayers and Azan, or from the
performance of other religious duties. When the rulers of the
country do interdict these, as the Infidels of Mecca did to our
Prophet, then Mahomcdans shall be bound to leave the country!"

I think I have conclusively shown that the inferences drawn
by the Englishman are, to a great exent, erroneous, and that
Mahomedans in India have no call whatever to rise in rebellion
against their rulers. A more careful examination of the facts
of the case, both on their part and on the part of English
journalists, would have saved the country a great deal of un-
necessary agitation. A little knowledge is often a dangerous
thing, and the Englishman will doubtless regret having penned
the last paragraph of the article under discussion. None of the
Futwas of the last eighty years have been, nor is it necessary
that they should be, reversed.

APPENDIX Vl)

AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY SYED AHMED KHAN BAHADUR,

C. S, I., AND PUBLISHED IN THE ALLYGURH INSTITUTE

GAZETTE OF THE 12tH MAY, 1871.

Some of my readers will think that the much disputed ques-
tion of Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb has already been gone into
sufficiently, and requires no more elucidation, but I would
remark that though the matter has been much talked of yet it
has been little understood.

It is not my intention in this article to discuss the point with
reference to any particular place or country. I wish only to
explain to the public the true signification and the proper appli-

XIV

cation of the words Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb, and also
the ordinances relating to each.

The words Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb do not occur in
the Koran, nor they are found in any of the Hadises (sayings of
the Prophet Mahomet). Only one Hadis which allowes usury
to the Mahomedans, but which does not rank in authority with
other Hadises, and is consequently not very reliable, contains
word Dar-ul-Harb. When the professors of the Mahomedan
religion compiled the laws cf their faith, they made use of these
two words as special technicalities. The primary signification
of the word Dar-ul-Harb is "The House of Strife," and that of
Dar-u'-IsUm, "House of Islam." They were never used in their
original sense in Mahomedan Law except in their secondary

I meaning. Dar-ul-Harb is a mere technical name for a country
not governed by Mahomedan Laws, in other words a country

j not under a Mahomedan Government. Again, a country govcr-

j ned by Mahmodan Laws and having a Mahomedan Government

i is called Dar-ul-Islam.

Now from the above signification of the words in question
it might be inferred that a country brought under the subjection
of a Mahomedan Government would be converted into Dar-ul-
Islam, similarly a country conquered from the Mahomedans by
an infidel ruler, into Dar-ul-Harb. Reference, however, to the
commandments relating to each of these two classes of countries
will show that there are places which, in reality, are neither
Dar-ul-Islam nor Dar-ul-Harb, though for some special reason,
they may be called by either of these names.

It is generally believed that Imam Abu Hanifa differs from
Imams Mahommed and Abu Yusuf as to the circumstances
under which Dar-ul-Islam becomes Dar-ul-Harb, but in reality,
the inconsistency is merely nominal. According to Imam Abu
Hanifa, the following three conditions make a Dar-ul-Islam
Dar-ul-Harb.

I. *' If the rule of the Infidels be predominant in the
country."

II. If it be not surrounded with other regions under Maho-
mcdan rule, in other words if the Government of the country be
firm and settled."

III. " If the position of the faithful and the non-believing
population of the country who were at first under the protection
of a Mahomedan Government and were governed by Mahome-
dan Laws be altered, and their pretection be vested in an Infidel
ruler."

In the opinion of Imam Mahommed and Abu Yusuf, the
first of the foregoing three conditions was clearly sufficient for
the settlement of the question ; they thought that the other two
conditions were only the concomitant results of the first ; and
this is the fact.

Now, the ordinances connected with Dar-uI-Harb apply to
two distinct classes of Mahomedans. The first class includes
Mahmedans living in an Infidel country (Dar-ul-Harb) under a
foreign rule as subjects ; and the second, comprises the Maho-
medan population of a country governed by an independent ruler
of their own faith.

Their religion enjoins on the firrt class as follows : —

I. "They must obey their rulers, abstain from war or
conspiracy against them, and must give no help to the opponents
of their Government, otherwise they lay themselves open to the
charge of rebellion."

II. "Punishments fixed by Mahomedan Law for certain
sins will not be held good with regard to offenders amongst
them, but they shall be requited with penalties suitable to their
circumstances."

III. "Some of the contracts bearing upon sale and purchase,
and borrowing and lending money, held unlawful in Dar-ul-Islam,
shall be considered lawful for them in Dar-ul-Harb."

IV. "If the Government under which they live interdict
than fro-n the frsc dischargs of their religious duties, they shall

XVI

leave the country without rising up in arms against the Govern-
ment, as in the time of our Prophet, the true followers of
Mahommed, when oppressed by the non-believers, quietly with-
drew from Mecca to Medina and Abyssinia, the latter country
being at that time under a Christian Ruler. But in a Dar-ul-
Islam, if the Mahomedan ruler of the country acts contrary to
the Law, his Mahomedan subjects are authorised to dethrone
him, to try his case in an open Court, and if necessary, to take
up arms to accomplish their object ; because, according to
Mahomedan religion, the Kalif or the King, by whatever name
the ruler of a country may be called, possesses no more power
than the President of the Government of the United States of
America."

Let us now turn to the commandments enjoined upon the
Mahomedans forming the second class.

They are authorised to make Jihad against an Infidel
Government if they have sufficient reason to believe that their
fellow religionists living under that Government are oppressed
and prohibited in the free discharge of their religious duties,
provided there exists no treaty between them, and also provided
that they have good chances of bringing the war to a successful
issue as happened in the case of Mecca in the time of our Prophet,
and lately in that of the Sikh Government during the reign of
Ranjit Sinha.

It will thus be seen, that an Infidel Government in which the
Mahomedans enjoy every sort of peace and security, discharge
their religious duties with perfect freedom, and which is connec-
ted with a Mahomedan Government by a treaty, is not Dar-ul-
Islam, because it is a Non-Mahomedan Government, but we
may call it so as regards the peace and religious freedom which
the Moslems enjoy under its protection ; nor is it Dar-ul-Harb,
because the treaty existing between it and the Moslem Govern-
ment makes Jihad against it unlawful. It may however be
called Dar-ul-Harb as it is not a Mahomedan Government. The
position of Hindustan is exactly such as described in the last
two sentences.

XVII

In conclusion, allow me, readers, to hope that I have thus
drawn a brief but sufficiently clear and distinguishing line bet-
ween Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-Islam which will obviate all con-
fusion on the point for the future.

The authorities on which I rely in support of my above
statements are : —

1. — Alamgiri.

2. — Duree Mukhtar.

3. — Tahetavi.

4. — Sharai.

5. — Siyarul Kabir.

APPENDIX VII,

AN ARTICLE ON JIHAD, PUBLISHED IN THE EDITORIAL COLUMNS
OF THE PIONEER OF THE 23rD NOVEMBER, 1871.

JiHAD. — There is a passage in the address lately delivered by
Sir William Muir at Moradabad which strikes us as ofunmis-
takeable import ; it is that in which he lays down the principles
which have been always held by the British Governmsnt in its
relations with its non-Christian subjects, both Musalman and
Hindu. "The Musalman, without let or hindrance, performs
his Azan and observes his prayers and festivals, his Mohurrum,
his fasts, and his pilgrimages : and so also the Hindu, of what-
ever sect, celebrates his worship with all its attendant conditions
of holy places, fairs, and bathings, in whatever manner he
thinks proper. In short, every one throught the land is absolu-
tely free to serve God according to the dictates of his own con-
science." These words, we conceive, define exactly the position
of our Government towards iti subjects; and taking them for
our text, we propose to examine, and in some respects to traverse.

XVIII

the position laid down by Mr. Hunter in his recent work on
"Our Indian Musalmans."

We have before stated, and need not repeat here, our object-
ions to the ignoratio elenchi involved in discussing a question,
the import of which extends to the whole of India, upon grounds
which, if true, are true only of Lower Bengal. It would be easy
to show that, if Muhammadan holidays arc neglected in
Calcutta, they are fully recognised in these Provinces ; if Mu-
salmans are deprived of place and power in Bengal, they have
their full share of official emoluments in Northern India. But
this is not the matter now before us. The position taken up
by our author may be thus briefly stated : — India isno longer
a Dar-ul-Islam, or country of the Faithful. Were it so, it would
be the duty of every Musalman to maintain it in its position
as such by armed rebellion or jihad. It is a Dar-ul-harb, or
country of the enemy — because it is no longer ruled by a Moslem
ruler — because it is no longer administered under the law of
Islam — and because the Moslems remaining therein are no lon-
ger in the possession of the plenary status of a Muhammadan,
the "aman-ul-awwal." But jihad is not, notwithstanding these
conditions, lawful, because the Moslems are here protected,
moostamitiy and are permitted to exercise their religious duties
without let or hindrance. Thus the duty of jihad would act-
ually be affirmed by the decision that India is a Dar-ul-Islam ;
while it is shown not to apply under the conditions in which
it exists as a Dar-ul-harb. Thus, too, Wahabis, who are assumed
to held that, because India is a Dar-ul-harb, therefore jihad is
lawful and incumbent, are convinced of ignorance of the law of
Islam.

It will be observed that the whole of the above conclusions
depend for their validity on the interconnection between jihad,
or war in defence of religion, and the distinction between the
Dar-ul-Islam, and the Dar-ul-Harb ; and further, on the
assumption that every country must be to the Faithful either
Dar-ul-harb or Dar-ul-Islam. If, therefore, we can show that
this classification of inhabited countries is not aa exhaustive

XIX

dichotomy, and that the law and practice of Islam recognizes,
and has always recognized, a third term, under which neither,
is the country a country of the Faithful nor is jihad lawful, v/e
shall have placed the discussion as to the conscientious loyalty
of our Musalman subjects on quite other grounds than the
distinction drawn by Mr. Hunter — upon grounds on which,
we may hope, every Musalman will join us in concluding that
he may be heartily faithful both to his religion and his Queen.

First, v.'hat is jihad'! It is war in defence of the faith
''fi sabilillah'\ But it has conditions, and, except under these,
it is unlawful. It must be against those who are not only Kafirs,
but also "obstruct the exercise of the faith." The doctors of
the law in ail ages, not merely the Moulvies, Meccan or of No-
rthern India, whom Mr. Hunter quotes, has laid down that to
constitute the essential conditions for yV/io'J on the part of pro-
tected Musalmans as against a Christian power protecting
them, there mnsi hQ positive oppression or obstruction to the
Moslems in the exersise of their faith ; not merely want of
countenance, negative withholding of support, or absence of
profession of the faith ; and further, this obstruction and
oppresion which justifies jihad must be, not in civil, but in
religious matters ; it must impair the foundation of some one
of the "pillars of Islam," and not merely touch the existence
of Kazees, the maintenance of the tombs of saints (a practice
declared by the stricter Moslems to be heretical), or the ad-
ministration of the country through Moslems officials. There
are merely negative abstentions from the faith {kufr), not that
positive oppression {zulm) and obstruction to the exercise of
the faith {sadd) which alone can justify yV/jaJ.

'i^ow the Dar-ul-harb is essentially and absolutely a country
in which these conditions exist, and in which jihad is lawful.
It cannot be according to the natural meaning of the term, and
so long as words are used in their primary sense, a country
where jihad is illegal. Dar-ul-Harb does not mean "the country
of the enemy, " as translated through-out his book by Mr. Hun-
ter; but "a country of Har"~a country in which it is the duty of

Moslems to wage war with all their might against the oppressors
of their faith, or, in default of ability to wage war, from which
they should flee with all convenient speed, as the Prophet fled
from unbelieving Mecca. There is no alternative. If a land
is "the home of war, was must be waged, or the Faithful remove
therefrom. It is a mere abuse of language to apply the name
Dar-ul harb to a country with which it is lawful for true believers
to maintain any friendly relations whatever; it is a mere legal
subtlety to declare that a country is the "home of war, "and
yet to allow that Moslems therein enjoy ''aman, " whether the
greater or lesser. We do not deny that the title Dar-ul-harb
has been applied, even by Moslem doctors of authority and
weight, to a country in which jihad is not lawful ; but he con-
tend that this is a misapplication of the term : Dar-ul-harb can-
not mean a country where war cannot lawfully be waged in
defence of the faith. Its use as the designation of such a
country is a mere dialectical evolution, and a departure from
its original sense. The proper term would under these con-
ditions rather be Dar-ul-aman, or "land of security," in which
a Moslem may lawfully reside as moostamin, or seeker of
aman.

This is no fanciful theory unsupported by precedent or
tradition, but is, and has been, the conclusion arrived at from
precedents reaching back to the days of the Prophet himself
Islam is essentially a system of precedent; no least act of the
Prophet or his Followers is without its import in defining
the relations of the Faith with the World ; and among these
acts of Muhammad we find one, the bearing of which is unmis-
takeable.

During the early days of Islam, while it barely maintained
itself in the Hashimite quarter of Mecca, and Muhammad relied
for protection against the unbelieving Koreish mainly upon his
imcle Abu Talib (himself an unbelivcr), in the fifth year of the
Prophet's ministry, took place the first Hegira, or flight from
tlie land of persecution to "a country wherein no one was

XXI

wronged— a land of righteousness." This was the Christian
kingdom of Abyssinia, ruled over by the Najashee Negus, "a'
just king." Among the emigrants on this occasion were the
Prophet's own son-in-law, Othman, the son ofAffan, and his
wife, the Prophet's daughter. Here the emigrants were kindly
treated, and all the efforts of the Koreish to dislodge them were
unavailing. Next year, the sixth of the Ministry, the persecution
at Meca redoubling, a second emigration thither took place,
more numerous than the first, so that, we are told, the number
of the Faithful in the Christian country reached 101, without
counting their little ones. Here they dwelt in peace and quite-
ness : may of them remained till long after the victorious
promulgation of Islam, and did not rejoin muhammad until
the expedition to Khaiber, in the seventh year of the Hegira.

It is difficult to overrate the importance of this incident.
We have actully the conditions of jihad fulfilled on the one
hand, and an exact counterpart of the conditions under which
the Moslems now live in India on the other. At Mecca the
alternative of jihad or hijrat, fight or flight, presented itself.
Those who were strong enough to fight remained, and upheld
the faith in the blockaded quarter of Abu Talib. Those who
were week fled, and fled to a Christian land. Those they found
kindliness and hospitality, and dwelt many years in safety
under the protection of the "People of the Book." The Koran
says*— "Of a truth ye shall find the most violent of men in cmity
against those believe, the Jews and those who have associated
others in companionship with God ; and ye shall find the

nearest of men in charity to those who believe, those who say

We are Nazarenes- This is because among them are priests
and monks, and because they are not puff'ed up." Here, then
we have the Prophet's own authority, both by act and precept]
for the recognition by a Moslem of the existence ofanon-Meslem
country, in which it is lawful for him to reside under the pro-
tection of a ruler of an aline faith : a country in which jihad

• Sura V , V. 86 .

XXII

is positively prohibited by the fact that it is itself a maman,
a refuge from a country in which jihad or flight was a duty.
The condition of the Moslems in India under British rule is
precisely similar. They are absolutely free from interference
with their faith ; they manage the internal affairs of their
community by their own law ; they perform their pilgrimage,
and celebrate their Eeds, without let or hindrance.

We have thus shown that the duty of jihad in reference to
Moslems who live under the protection of a Christian Govern-
ment, is fenced about with strict conditions, which must be
fu'filled before the duty can become incumbent : that none of
these conditions exist in British India : that British India is,
on the other hand, a country in which that protection is afforded
to the Faithful with which they met at the hands of the Chris-
tian ruler of Abyssinia ; add that consequently, so long as that
protection exists, we must conclude that insurrection would be a
crime. To call such a country Dar-ul-Hcrb, in the strict and
only legitimate sence of the word, is absurd. It can only
be so called in that constructive and improper sense in which
Musalnian doctors have applied it to all non-Moslem countries.

It appears to us that Mr. Hunter has somewhat misunder-
stood the bearing of the decisions of the doctors of Mecca and
Northern India which he quotes— the one declaring India to be
Dar-ul-hlam, and the other declaring it to be Dar-ul-harb. We
dectecl no such insidious incitement to revolt in the first as he
declares to reside in it. In fact, we believe that both authorities,
looking at the question propounded from slightly different points
of view, meant much the same. The Dar-ul-harb of the Indian
doctors was not the real Dar-ul-harb, but the constructive one,
which we have suggested might rather be called Dar-ul-amam :
in this the free exercise of the faith is secured to the believers,
and y/Tiafi? is unlawful. But looked at from the other side, this
condition might also be defined as Dar-ul-hlam and as such the
great body of Musalmans in India regard, and have always
regarded, it. At any rate, the conditions of jihad are to the

XXIII

Arabian doctors as to those of India the same ; whether under
a Dar-ul-Islam or a Da—uI-Harb, they do not vary : and by
whichever name the intermediate relation in which we have
shewn British India to stand to the Moslem may be called, jihad
is equally unauthorized, and condemned by the concurrent voice
ofMusalraan tradition, from the Prophet to the doctors of
to-day.

In his portraiture of the Wahabis as set forth in his work,
Mr. Hunter uniformly describes them as the prsachers of
insurrection. Occasionally we meet with a qualifying sentence :
but throughout the book the general inference is that a Wahabi
is necessarily a traitor, "a revolutionist alike in politics and in
religion" — a "preacher of holy war." If this were so, the
Wahabi would be broadly marked off from all other Muham-
madan sects by his denial of those conditions which, in the
opinion of the orthodox, are absolutely necessary to warrant
jihad. But it is not so. A Wahabi is not even necessarily an
exclusive follower of Abdul Wahhab ; he may be a Hanafi, a
Maliki, or a member of any other Musalman sect — and almost
invariably denominates himself (so far as our observation in
these Provinces has gone) as a Sunni, A Wahabi is simply a
pure worshipper — a puritan of Islam, a follower of the uncon-
taminated faith of the Prophet. To represent him as uniformly
a secret conspirator against constituted authority — a worker iu
darkness, a preacher of sedition — is a libel. We could point to
many men in the service of Government, than whom Govern-
ment possesses no more faithful or trusted servants, who openly
and fearlessly and honorably avow that they are Wahabis, and
glory in the name. Nay, more : these men are not only now
the trusted servants of the State, but many of them were tried
in the hottest fire of the Mutiny, and remained faithful. Had
they been preachers of yV/zai/ — had rebellion been of the essence
ofWahabi-ism — this could never have been. And we commend
their conduct to Mr. Hunter's notice, as a complete reply, on ihs
part of the Wahabis themselves, to the ''crucial question"
suggested by liira in his book.

XXIV
APPENDIX VIII.

A LETTER FROM A MUSALMAN OF AGRA, PRESENTLY ON A

VISIT TO England, published in the "Times"
IN November last.

To THE Editor of the "Times."

Sir, — I have read with much pleasure the letter by Colonel
Nassau Lees in the Times of the 14th ultimo. Though very
favourable to Her Majesty's Mahomedan subjects in India, it
is not very fair to a sect which it is the fashion just now to
represent in an odious light, and I beg to offer a few remarks
with a view to prevent much injustice being done to a large,
deserving, and influential portion of the Mahomedan com-
munity. As it is an important subject, I hope you will do me
the favor to give it space in your columns.

The Wahabi question has recently been the cause of great
alarm both to the English authorities and to the Mahomedan
population of India, and the former, as I understand from some
communications, seem determined to extirpate, if they can, the
whole sect that have the misfortune to be called Wahabis. But
I much fear the Government officers have fellen into a fatal
mistake, inasmuch as they appear to take Wahabis in general
for disaffected people and disloyal subjects. A Wahabi, as far
as Mahomedan religion is concerned, m.eans nothing more
than one who has the most firm and implicit belief in the unity
of God, and who has no faith in the supernatural powers of
saints, nor in the superstitions which derive no support from
true Mahomedanism, but have, somehow or other, obtained
credence among different sects. In point of fact a Wahabi is
the faithful observer of the injunctions of the Koran and the
precepts of the Prophet, and his religious opinions are anything
but irrational, I cannot help believing that patient inquiry
would show that more than half of the Mahomedan population

XXV

©f India being to that sect, and yet they are as loyal subject
as it is possible for a foreigner to be. To suspect, therefore,
all these who are called Wahabis of disloyalty, and to treat
them accordingly, would be the surest way of spreading disaffec-
tion among loyal subjects, and this would be as dangerous as to
pass over without notice real disaffection.

The English people appear to have fallen into another
mistake. They believe that Wahabi-ism imposes upon the
holders of that faith the duty of making religious war (Jihad)
upon "infidels." There cannot be a greater error. The
injunction to make Jihud is, no doubt, one of the principal
commandments (or to use the literal translation of Arabic, is
"one of the pillars of Islam"), the observance of which is as
incumbent upon any Mussulman, as upon a Wahabi. But this
injunction is qualified by many conditions; and as it is a
religious duty of a Mahomedan to make Jihad when circums-
tances make it imperative, so it is not the less important for
him to abstain from it when circumstances do not call for it.
The decisions of the Mahomedan law authorities of India have
set at rest the question that the conditions which make a country
Dar-ul-harb (home of war) ; that is, a country where it becomes
imperatively necessary, on religious grounds for the Mnhome-
dans either to make Jihad or to give up their residence there,
are not found under a Government which has spread tranquillity
over the length and breadth of its dominions, administers
justice with impartiality, keeps the Mahomedans in safety, and
does not interfere with their religion. The Wahabis, therefore,
famed as they are for the religious observance of their tenets,
are the first people to believe in the illegality of Jihad against
the English. I, for one, can point out some persons of great
influence who, though Wahabis to the backbone, have proved
themselves by various tests, the most sincere friends to their
Christian Sovereign. In the late Munity, at the risk of their
lives and of the destruction of their families, they took no part
against the English, simply because it was contrary to their faith

XXVI

to make Jihad against them. They consulted their doctors over
and our again at the time the Munity of 1857 was in full blaze in
places and in conditions where nothing was to be feared from an
English magistrate, and the British power was almost prostrated,
and there was very little expectation of its restoration. Even
the decisions of those troublesome days prove that the Wahabis
were legally forbidden to wage war. There can be no doubt
that the true Wahabis adhered to these decisions, and conse-
quently were a great source of strength to the English in the
days of their misfortune, Wahabi-ism is as averse from making
Jihad against the English under present circumsfancps as
Sunniism or Siaism, for the texts of the Koran which treat about
Jihad are so clear and precise that they could hardly be interpre-
ted in more than one way, and the inferences drawn from them
are almost one and the same among different sects.

But if there are people in India who, as Colonel Nassau Less
justly says, "do not recognize the doctrines" or the Law of the
orthodox Moslem," who hate the English for no other ostensible
reason than that they are English and Christians, and who have
kept the "North-Western frontier in a state of chronic warfare,"
such people ought not to have been called true Mahomedans,
and much less Wahabis, They are rebels at heart, instigated
by avarice and love of plunder, and have induced others who are
as unprincipled at themselves to make war against their
Christian Sovereign, I have no doubt that most of them are
men who, in one way or another, have become outcasts from
their own society, or who are guilty of some crime, but have
succeeded in escaping punishment. These people, as described
I by Dr. Huuter, constitute " a perennial stream of malcontents.

Absconding debtors, escaped convicts, spendthrifts,

too ruined to be at peace with social order, traitors too guilty
to hope for mercy from the law,"

It is, therefore, necessary for the sake of India, no less than
for the sake of justice, that the British Government should be
careful to discriminate between the Wahabis and rebels before

XXVII

it tukes any decisive steps in ihe matter; for, unless such
distinction is made, there is great danger of giving rise to a
state of things which may prove still more disastrous to the
English Government in India.

The Anglo-Indians seem so much prejudiced against the
Wahabis that they appear glad to find some excuse for giving
them a bad name. For instance, the murder of the late
lamented Mr. Justice Norman has been laid at the door of
Wahabi-ism, and some of your correspondents look the
opportunity to give expression to their animosity by
unsupported statements that the murderer was a Wahabi.
It is idle for me say whether he was so or not till
further testimony is at hand, but, as far as the telegrams you
have published can give any information, it is clear that no
Wahabi name has been mentioned. Besides, it is impossible to
see in what way the assassin could have hoped to benefit the
case of Amir Khan by murdering a Judge who was sure to be
replaced by another of the same nation, religion, and almost of
similar qualifications. I cannot help thinking that the assassin
had some personal grudge against the late Officiating Chief
Justice, and having an irritable and excitable temper, for which
all his countrymen (Afghans) are famous, was probably unable
to curb his savage propensities, and so murdered his victim.

Apologizing for the length of the letter, I have the honor to
be. Sir, your most obedient servant,

A MUSSALMAN OF AGRA.

OS Ahmad Khan, (Sir) Syed

475 Review on Dr. Hunter's

.1 Indian Musalmans

K942A35

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

THE

WW.

wml^^

/A /

y rwwW^

®*'

W. W. HUNTER

Reprinted from the Original Edition.

••km

Us. 0-OC

Premier Book House

Anarkaii LAHORE ( Tf ^a4.)

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Review on Dr. Hunter's Indian Musalmans; are they bound in conscience to rebel against the Queen?"

See other formats